Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project Town of Waterville Valley Grafton County, NH
Environmental Assessment
June, 2013
For Information Contact: Susan Mathison White Mountain National Forest 71 White Mountain Drive Campton, NH 03223 Phone: 603-536-6245
Fax: 603-536-3685; Attn: Susan Mathison
[email protected] http://www.fs.usda.gov/whitemountain/land management/projects
Environmental Assessment
This document is available in large print. Contact the Pemigewasset Ranger District White Mountain National Forest 603-536-6100 TTY 603-536-3665
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...... 7
1.1 Document Structure ...... 7
1.2 Project Introduction ...... 8
1.3 Project Area...... 8
1.4 Forest Service Authority, Policy, and Management Direction ...... 9
1.5 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 13
1.6 Decision Framework ...... 15
1.7 Public Involvement ...... 16
2 Description of Alternatives and Issues for Analysis ...... 18
2.1 Introduction ...... 18
2.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 18
2.3 Issues Identification ...... 23
2.4 Resources Not Analyzed in Detailed ...... 24
2.5 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 25
3 Existing Conditions and Environmental Effects ...... 27
3.1 Water Resources ...... 28
3.2 Soil Resources ...... 44
3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ...... 49
3.4 Vegetation Resources and Non-Native Invasive Species ...... 53
3.5 Wildlife Resources ...... 59
3.6 Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species (TEPS) and Regional Foresters Sensitive Species (RFSS) ...... 64
3.7 Visuals ...... 74
3.8 Winter Recreation Resources ...... 91
3.9 Socioeconomic ...... 97
3 Environmental Assessment
4 Consultation or Coordination ...... 107
4.1 USDA Forest Service Participation ...... 107
4.2 Other Governmental Agencies Contacted ...... 107
5 References ...... 108
6 Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... 114
Appendix A – Response to Comments ...... 117
4 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
List of Tables
Table 2.5-1 Summary of Alternatives Analysis ...... 26
Table 3.1-1. Snowmaking Demand and Completion under Existing and Proposed Conditions ...... 40
Table 3.1-2. Recent or Probable Future Projects within the WMNF to be considered for Cumulative Effects ...... 42
Table 3.2-1. Ecological Land Types mapped within the Waterville Valley Green Peak Project Area...... 45
Table 3.3-1. Mad River Fish Stocking 2011 ...... 51
Table 3.6-1. Likelihood of Occurrence of TEPS and RFSS Plant Species and/or Habitat with the potential to occur in the Green Peak Expansion Area, based on field reviews...... 66
Table 3.6-2. TEPS and RFSS ...... 69
Table 3.8-1. Existing Terrain Distribution by Ability Level...... 92
Table 3.8-2. Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Terrain Distribution by Ability Level ...... 94
Table 3.9-1. State, County and Town Population Estimates ...... 98
Table 3.9-2. Housing Supply Characteristics 2000-2009 ...... 99
Table 3.9-3. Employment and Wage Data ...... 100
Table 3.9-4. Employment by Industry Sector for Grafton County, 2000-2010 ...... 100
Table 3.9-5. Quarterly Unemployment Data, 2011 ...... 101
Table 3.9-6. Regional Employment Derived From Waterville Valley Ski Resort, 2011-12 ...... 102
Table 3.9-7. Waterville Valley Skier Visits, Snowfall and Days Open 1997-1998 to 2011-2012 ...... 103
Table 3.9-8. Summary of Estimated Socioeconomic Effects to Grafton County and Local Communities ...... 104
5 Environmental Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1.3-1. Waterville Valley Ski Resort Location Map...... 10
Figure 1.3-2. Green Peak Expansion Project Area...... 11
Figure 3.1-1. Mad River Watershed Area...... 29
Figure 3.1-2. Green Peak Expansion Project Water Resources Map...... 30
Figure 3.1-3. Green Peak Expansion Project Wetlands and Surface Waters...... 35
Figure 3.1-4. Green Peak Expansion Project Effects to Wetlands and Surface Waters...... 39
Figure 3.2-1. Green Peak Expansion Project and USFS Ecological Land Types...... 46
Figure 3.4-1. Green Peak Expansion Project Vegetation Communities...... 55
Figure 3.7-1. Green Peak Expansion Project Viewpoint Location Map...... 76
Figure 3.7-2. Viewpoint 2A – Village Area...... 79
Figure 3.7-3. Viewpoint 2B – Village Area...... 80
Figure 3.7-4. Viewpoint 3 – The Scaur...... 81
Figure 3.7-5. Viewpoint 4 – Goodrich Rock...... 83
Figure 3.7-6. Viewpoint 5 - Mt. Osceola...... 84
Figure 3.7-7. Viewpoint 6 – Mt. Tripyramid...... 86
Figure 3.8-1 Recent National, Regional and Waterville Valley Skier Visitation Trends ...... 93
6 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
1 Introduction
1.1 Document Structure
The USDA Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in response to Waterville Valley Ski Resort’s proposal for the Green Peak Expansion Project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the analysis for the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that may result from the Proposed Action and alternatives, if one were implemented. The document is organized into six chapters to support the analysis.
1. Introduction: This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the Purpose of and Need for the project, and information on how the Forest Service will make a decision. This chapter also details the public involvement process for the Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project.
2. Description of Alternatives and Analysis of Issues: This chapter provides a description of the Proposed Action which was developed to specifically address and respond to the Purpose and Need for the project. This chapter also introduces the issues for analysis identified during public involvement and discussion among the Forest Service Interdisciplinary (ID) team.
3. Existing Conditions and Environmental Effects: This chapter is organized into sections by resource. Each section begins with the issue statement(s) that tie the resource to the respective issue(s) identified from public comments and by resource specialists. The existing conditions of the resource are described as they relate to the effects analysis. Finally, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the implementation of the alternatives are disclosed.
4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of Forest Service staff that assisted in the preparation of the EA, as well as other agencies, organizations or individuals consulted during its development.
5. References: This chapter provides a list of reference material cited in the environmental assessment.
6. Abbreviations and Acronyms: This chapter provides a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in the Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project Environmental Assessment.
7 Environmental Assessment
Additional documentation may be found in the Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project file located at the White Mountain National Forest Headquarters in Campton, New Hampshire.
1.2 Project Introduction
The Forest Service is proposing to authorize Waterville Valley Ski Resort, LLC (Waterville Valley) to implement the Green Peak Expansion Project (the Project), located on National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Green Peak area of Waterville Valley’s Special Use Permit (SUP) on Mt. Tecumseh. The project as proposed would include the construction of one detachable, four-person chairlift, eight new trails and one glade. The Waterville Valley Black and Blue Trail Smashers (BBTS) Competition building would be removed to accommodate the lower terminal for the new lift. Services associated with the BBTS Competition building would be relocated to a new facility located elsewhere in the base area. The Proposed Action would occur entirely on lands designated in the Forest Plan as Management Area (MA) 7.1 Alpine Ski Areas.
1.3 Project Area
Waterville Valley is located in central New Hampshire, approximately fifteen miles northeast of Plymouth, Grafton County, New Hampshire, and twenty miles south of Franconia Notch and the Presidential Range (Figure 1.3-1). Waterville Valley is a four- season resort operated on National Forest System lands in the Pemigewasset Ranger District at the southern end of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF). Waterville Valley’s close proximity to Interstate-93 provides an easily accessible mountain and recreation experiences for New Hampshire residents and out-of-state guests from the south and U.S. and Canadian visitors from the north.
Waterville Valley Holdings, LLC, owns the ski area lifts, lodges, snowmaking equipment, etc. Waterville Valley Ski Resort operates under a Special Use Permit (SUP) authorized by the WMNF and administered by the Eastern Region Winter Sports Team. The SUP authorizes use of 3,010 acres of NFS lands for alpine skiing areas at Mt. Tecumseh (816 acres) and Snow’s Mountain (40 acres) and for Nordic skiing, sled dog tours and mountain bike terrain surrounding the Town of Waterville Valley (2,154 acres). Waterville Valley has operated under a SUP since the 1960s; the current SUP was issued in 2010 and expires on October 8, 2050.
The SUP authorizes the permit holder to provide four-season, developed recreation opportunities to the public on NFS lands. While the Forest Service oversees the
8 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
management of the lands and resources associated with the ski area, the improvements, including lifts, lodges, snowmaking systems, etc., are owned and operated by the permit holder. The cost of construction (and removal, when necessary) of these facilities is the responsibility of the permit holder as are all operating expenses, environmental analyses and environmental protection measures. In addition, the permit holder pays user fees to the US Government; these fees are based on the holder’s business receipts. This analysis is also funded in advance by the permit holder, irrespective of the outcome of the Responsible Official's decision.
There are approximately 220 skiable acres at the resort that encompass the following features: 52 maintained trails, five gladed areas, and terrain features that include six Mogul fields, four different terrain parks and a learner’s area (WVSR 2012). With the exception of the deficiencies currently identified and discussed below, the trail and terrain network accommodates a range of ability levels from beginner to expert for both skiers and riders.
For the purpose of analyzing the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project and the development of this document, the Green Peak Expansion Area (GPEA; Project Area) has been defined as a subset of those specific lands operated by Waterville Valley within the SUP area (Figure 1.3-2). This is a slightly larger area than that upon which the various project activities are proposed to take place; however, it is designed as such to encompass a majority of the proposed direct and indirect resource effects. Each resource analyzed in Chapter 3 identifies the specific analysis area for that resource.
1.4 Forest Service Authority, Policy, and Management Direction
The enabling authorities of the Forest Service derive from many laws enacted by Congress and the regulations and administrative directives that implement these laws, as described in numerous Forest Service documents and on the USDA-Forest Service website (http://www.fs.fed.us). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires site specific analysis and documentation for projects proposed for the implementation of the Forest Plan. Compliance with NEPA at the project level involves environmental analysis for a specific proposal to implement the Forest Plan. It includes the disclosure of environmental effects of proposed activities and alternatives, public participation, analysis of alternatives and preparation of a decision document that provides specific direction for project implementation if an action alternative is selected by the decision maker. The Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project analysis is documented in
9 Environmental Assessment
Figure 1.3-1. Waterville Valley Ski Resort Location Map.
10 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Figure 1.3-2. Green Peak Expansion Project Area.
11 Environmental Assessment
this site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA), which is tiered to the Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2005b; EIS) and Record of Decision (USDA 2005c; ROD) for the Forest Plan. With the exception of one Forest Plan standard for Canada lynx, all of the expected effects from this project are consistent with, and within the range of, the expected effects disclosed in the Forest Plan EIS.
The Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project is designed to achieve multiple resource benefits and work towards Desired Conditions as established in the Forest Plan (USDA 2005a; Forest Plan). As noted in the Forest Plan Goals and Objectives (Chapter 1, Forest Plan), a goal for the Forest is to “maintain and provide quality alpine skiing and related opportunities on the Forest through partnerships with the private sector.” Objectives to meet this goal include allowing Waterville Valley to continue to be operated by the private sector under SUP authority, consistent with permit language and the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Ch. 1, p. 1-4).
The Project’s Proposed Action includes activities that work towards meeting the Forest Plan Recreation Goals and Objectives of:
providing a range of quality recreation activities and opportunities. (Forest Plan p.1-10); and, working with the private sector through Special Use Permits to provide recreation opportunities (areas, facilities, services, and events) that the Forest Service alone is not able to offer, and that are consistent with the Desired Condition. (Forest Plan, P. 1-15). The Forest Plan allocates the Forest among Management Areas (MAs) and identifies a purpose, desired condition of the land, and standards and guidelines for each of these MAs. The purpose and desired condition for each MA describe the role of the MA in moving the Forest toward the Forest-wide goals. Management Area standards and guidelines are defined the same way as their Forest-wide counterparts, except that they apply only to land allocated to a specific MA. If there is no direction specific to an MA for a resource, there is a reminder that Forest-wide standards and guidelines still apply, which is true for all resources (Forest Plan Preface p. iv).
The Proposed Action is located entirely within Management Area (MA): 7.1 Alpine Ski Areas (USDA 2005a). The major emphasis of MA 7.1 is to provide alpine winter sports and year-round recreational opportunities at alpine ski areas on the Forest managed by the private sector under the Special Use Permit authority. The Desired Condition of MA 7.1 includes: “Large numbers of users may be present, sights and sounds of human activity will be readily evident, and the interaction between users will be moderate to high. Facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities
12 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
including parking lots, structures, and utilities will be evident, and are designed to be compatible with the values that make the area attractive to the users. Management and operating practices are aimed at enhancing permitted recreation activities at the area while protecting the natural resources and visual characteristics.” (Forest Plan, p. 3-31) The standards and guidelines for MA 7.1 include all Forest-wide standards and guidelines, with a few exceptions specific to this MA as discussed within each resource analysis section in Chapter 3. Except for a site-specific Forest Plan amendment for Canada lynx (discussed below in Section 1.5), the Project would be designed to be consistent with all applicable Forest-wide and MA 7.1 goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, as outlined in the Forest Plan.
1.5 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed expansion would increase terrain and offer a more gradual continuum of terrain challenges at the resort. This project was included in the Forest Service-accepted Waterville Valley 1999 Master Development Plan (MDP). The ski area has proposed this project to provide an improved visitor experience. In addition to providing additional trails and glade skiing, this project would also expand opportunities and improve safety for skiers. Currently, novice and intermediate skiers and riders who have mastered the lower intermediate Valley Run area of the resort but do not have sufficient skills to use more advanced trails have limited ability-appropriate access to the resort’s upper elevation trail system. The additional trails proposed would provide a skill-level- appropriate “summit” experience to introductory skiers and boarders. In addition, skiers of lower technical abilities would be disbursed over more of the mountain instead of being concentrated on the few trail options currently available. Because Valley Run also serves as the primary egress trail for the south side of the resort, congestion and ability-level mixing compromise both safety and skier experience. Direct access to the proposed Green Peak Expansion Area would be provided by the proposed Green Peak detachable quad ski lift, as identified in the 1999 MDP.
The principal goal of the 1999 MDP “is to provide a plan that will direct improvements to enhance the guest experience at Waterville Valley.” Planning for this project included extensive market research and guest surveys (conducted in 1997/98 and summarized in the MDP) that were used to evaluate guest preferences and needs, thus ensuring that the proposed improvements are consumer-driven and that improvements focus on terrain opportunities to enhance the skier experience. Results of this market research, supplemented by the NSAA 2011/12 Demographic Skier/Snowboarder Research New Hampshire (NSAA & RRC Associates 2012, NSAA Survey) show:
13 Environmental Assessment
skiers who come to the resort for a single day experience, including local residents and from nearby states, account for 60% of Waterville Valley’s guests. These data are consistent with the 2012 NSAA Survey data which found that 50% of the 2012 NH ski resort visitors were day-trippers; approximately 35% of Waterville Valley’s guests are traditional family groups (i.e., parents and children), a higher percentage than many other resorts in the region. Furthermore, the 2012 NSAA Survey data showed that nearly 60% of all NH skier and riders are visiting NH resorts with other family members (i.e., families and/or siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, etc.); guests are primarily novice to intermediate in ability level. Waterville Valley’s draft 1999 MDP indicates that 75% of the skier/rider market in this region is intermediate or lower; nearly one-fifth of guests surveyed in the 1997/98 season were attending the resort for the first time. These numbers are consistent with the 2012 NSAA Survey data which found that 21% of skiers/riders visiting NH ski resorts were doing so for the first time; and, approximately 21% of snowboarders consider themselves beginners, with over 12% of visitors being snowboarders. The 2012 NSAA Survey data found the 31% of 2012 NH snowboarders consider themselves as beginners and that 20% of the 2012 NH winter resort users were snowboards. The 2012 NSAA Survey data support Waterville Valley management belief that its 1997/1998 market research data accurately reflect the current user group at the resort.
Given that Waterville Valley focuses on providing a quality recreational experience for families, and that guests are primarily novice to intermediate in skill level, Waterville Valley needs to provide an adequate distribution of terrain to meet or exceed industry standards to maximize guest experience and safety for this user group.
Need for a Forest Plan Amendment
The proposed Green Peak Expansion Project is consistent with most applicable Forest Plan direction; however during preliminary planning, the ID team identified that the proposed action, if implemented, would result in an inconsistency with one Standards and Guideline (S&Gs) for Canada lynx. The WMNF Canada lynx S&Gs (USDA 2005b, p. 2-14 to 2-16) are designed to protect lynx habitat. The Proposed Action would be inconsistent with the following Forest-wide Canada lynx standard (Forest Plan, p. 2-14): S-3: Unless a broad-scale assessment of landscape patterns that compares historical and current ecological processes and vegetation patterns is developed, disturbance must be limited in the following manner:
14 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
a) If more than 30 percent of lynx habitat in a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur because of vegetation management activities by Federal agencies unless the activity is proposed specifically to improve future snowshoe hare habitat. LAU’s are intended to provide a landscape-scale planning tool to identify large blocks of potential lynx habitat (e.g. across a Forest). The Project Area is located within LAU 11 which includes both lynx habitat and non-habitat. (See lynx habitat definitions in the Biological Evaluation in the Project Record). Currently, more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in LAU 11 is considered to be in unsuitable condition; thus the potential project effects to lynx habitat would not be consistent with the Forest Plan (see S-3 a), above). The Proposed Project is adjacent to a highly developed area in the extreme southern edge of potential lynx habitat on the Forest. Currently known occurrences of lynx or evidence of lynx occur well north of the Green Peak project area. The likelihood of lynx occurring in this southernmost mapped LAU now or in the foreseeable future is considered to be very low.
Lynx have a large home range, and the Proposed Action would alter only a small fraction (approximately 0.3%) of the 12,992 acres of suitable lynx habitat mapped in LAU 11. Based on the low potential for occurrence in the project area and the minimal amount of effects to habitat (< 0.3%), the project may affect but would not likely adversely affect individual Canada lynx.
In order to implement the proposed action in an LAU that already has >30% of lynx habitat in unsuitable condition, an amendment to the Forest Plan is necessary. The scope of this Forest Plan amendment is limited to this Project; the amendment would not change management of Canada lynx or its habitat anywhere else or any of the remaining S&Gs for this species.
The Forest Service ID team is made up of specialists representing resource areas which have the potential to be affected by the Proposed Action. The ID team explored alternative project designs that would minimize effects to lynx habitat but determined that those alternatives would not meet the purpose and need for the project.
1.6 Decision Framework
The primary decision to be made by the Responsible Official is whether to implement management activities as proposed (Proposed Action), an alternative to the Proposed Action, if any, or the “No-Action” alternative. The Responsible Official will review the Proposed Action, the alternatives, and the anticipated effects of implementation as
15 Environmental Assessment
provided in this EA and supporting documentation. The Responsible Official will then select the alternative that best meets the Purpose and Need and addresses issues and concerns while keeping environmental effects to an acceptable level. Consideration will be given to how well each alternative meets Forest Plan goals and objectives.
Other decisions to be made include:
If an action alternative is selected, what mitigation measures and monitoring should be required?
Is a Forest Plan amendment is necessary to implement the process?
Is the information provided by the analysis sufficient to implement the proposed activities?
Does the proposed project have a significant effect that would trigger a need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement?
The Responsible Official for the decision will be Thomas G. Wagner, Forest Supervisor for the White Mountain National Forest.
Actions under Other Agency Purview
The proposed expansion and increase of terrain and associated snowmaking would be accomplished via a combination of actions located on NFS lands. Only the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and the cumulative effects of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, whether related to the Proposed Action or not, will be included in this analysis. The Forest Service has primary regulatory jurisdiction over the Proposed Action. However other federal, state, and local agencies may have regulatory jurisdiction through Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, including the NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The Forest Service will consult with USFWS under the Endangered Species Act regarding effects to Canada lynx. Other agencies such as the NH Fish and Game Department (NHF&G), the New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources (NHDHR) or the Town of Waterville Valley may choose to comment on the project.
1.7 Public Involvement
A Scoping Report for the Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project was mailed to interested and/or potentially affected members of the public on December 23, 2011. An informational open house was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at the Waterville Valley Conference and Event Center at 56 Packards Road, Waterville Valley, New
16 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Hampshire from 4-7 pm. The public was invited to attend anytime during this period to ask questions of the Forest Service staff or their representatives, review maps of the proposed expansion, and/or leave verbal or written comments on the project. The public or other interested parties could also submit comments on the Project to the Forest Service via email, fax, or phone per directions provided in the Scoping Report. The scoping comment period was open from December 23, 2011 to February 3, 2012.
This project has been continually published in the WMNF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since October 1, 2011. The Scoping Report and associated figures were posted on the WMNF web site and have been available for download since December 23, 2011.
In addition to the public scoping process, the Forest Service has consulted with other Federal and State agencies. These include the USFWS, NHF&G, NHDHR and NHDES.
Forty comments were received from letters, telephone conversations, emails and the public meeting as a result of public scoping. A Scoping Content Analysis was prepared which recognizes all of the comments received and provides more information on specific comments and how they were categorized. This document is a part of the Project file.
A Preliminary Environmental Assessment was distributed to interested parties for review and comment. The 30-day comment period began on April 23, 2013 and ended on May 22, 2013. Five responses, of which three contained comments, were received on the Preliminary EA. A Response to Comments is contained in Appendix A of this EA.
17 Environmental Assessment
2 Description of Alternatives and Issues for Analysis
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a description of the Proposed Action which was developed to specifically address and respond to the Purpose and Need for the project and discusses alternatives that were considered but were not analyzed in detail. This chapter also introduces the issues for analysis identified during public involvement and discussion among the Forest Service ID team and identifies resources that were not analyzed in detail due to lack of project effect on those particularly resources.
2.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives
This section describes and compares the alternatives that have been considered for the Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project. It presents alternatives in comparative form and defines the differences between them. This comparison provides a clear basis for choice by the Responsible Official to implement the alternative that best meets the Purpose and Need and addresses the issues identified through public involvement.
Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis
Alternative A: No-Action
The No-Action Alternative is used as a baseline to compare the environmental effects of the Proposed Action alternative. Under Alternative A, there would be no implementation of any of the management activities on NFS lands associated with the Proposed Action. Alternative A serves as a mechanism for analyzing the effects of no expanded terrain, no construction of an additional chairlift, and no relocation of the BBTS building. No site-specific Forest Plan amendment would be required.
Alternative B: Proposed Action
The proposed Project Action would include the construction of one detachable, four- person chairlift, eight new trails and one glade, as detailed below. The project will comply with all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guides, with the exception of lynx S-3 a) as noted below. In addition, all constructed facilities will be designed to meet the guidelines provided in Agricultural Handbook No. 617 which includes guidance on building design elements, tower colors and trail edge design.
18 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Overview
Green Peak, with an elevation of approximately 2,860 feet, is located southeast of Mt. Tecumseh (elevation ~3,840 feet) in the southeast quadrant of the Waterville Valley’s Mt. Tecumseh SUP (Figure 1.3-2). The proposed project would create a network of trails in the Green Peak area. This proposed terrain would be serviced by a new detachable quad chairlift. The Black and Blue Trail Smashers (BBTS) Competition building (Old Valley Run lift building) would be removed to accommodate the lower terminal of the new chairlift. A new BBTS Competition building would be constructed within the Project Area. Additional skier services would continue to be provided by the existing base area facilities.
Lift
The lower lift terminal of the proposed detachable quad chairlift would be constructed adjacent to the current location of the BBTS competition building. The lift would then extend about 4,000 feet to the top of Green Peak, running adjacent to and south of the Valley Run trail system (Figure 1.3-2). The capacity would be 2,800 skiers and riders per hour. Vertical rise would be approximately 1,000 feet.
The proposed top chairlift terminal would be in approximately the same location as indicated in the 1999 MDP, but the bottom chairlift terminal location would deviate slightly from this plan, shifting slightly to the north to be more accessible from Waterville Valley’s existing trail and lift system. The proposed chairlift and associated towers would be designed to comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines.
The BBTS competition building would be removed to accommodate the lower terminal of the new chairlift. Services provided by this building would be relocated to a new building to be constructed at the lower end of the tree island that separates Lower Periphery and The Pasture (as shown on Figure 1.3-2). The new structure would be two stories, approximately 40’ X 60’ at the base, thus containing about 4,800 sq. ft. Less than 0.1 acre of tree clearing would be required to construct this building. The Main BBTS/Ski Rental Building (Figure 1.3-2) would remain in place and its existing functions would remain unchanged.
Trails
The proposed project would create a network of eight new trails that would connect to and generally parallel the existing trail network along Stillness and Upper Valley Run, eventually merging and then emerging in the Lower Valley Run base area. This
19 Environmental Assessment
proposed trail network would be similar to that shown in the 1999 MDP, but would eliminate some trails leading away from the current base area (Figure 1.3-2). Mapped trail boundaries are approximate – final locations would be determined by specific ground conditions discovered during final layout prior to construction.
In general, trails and the chairlift line would be cut, stumped, graded and stabilized, in compliance with applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines for tree/vegetation removal. Tops, small trees and brush from the trails and the glade would be cut and chipped or burned on-site and the resulting chips and/or ashes worked back into the soil during trail construction. No ground disturbance would occur in the proposed 12-acre glade area. Per Forest Plan Standards for MA 7.1, the “use-cycle approach”, or a rotational sequence of cutting and re-vegetation, would be used in the glade area and protective measures implemented (Forest Plan, Ch. 3, p. 34). There are several large boulder areas that would be left, if possible, with trails directed around these locations. Clearing for the Green Peak Expansion Project would include approximately 44 acres for new trails, the chairlift, and for widened, existing trails that are adjacent to the proposed expansion.
Snowmaking
The new trails in this Proposed Action would be covered by natural and machine-made snow to a depth similar to other existing trails at Waterville Valley. Waterville Valley proposes to use the existing water supply sources (Mad River, Corcoran’s Pond) to supply machine-made snow to the expansion on Green Peak. All water withdrawals (inclusive of the needs of existing and proposed trails) would meet currently established minimum flow requirements. Waterville Valley operates under a minimum flow requirement of 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm) of watershed. This minimum flow was established by the Forest Service in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the late 1980s when Waterville Valley established the current Mad River water withdrawal location. As part of the permitting process under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, this withdrawal could be subject to additional conditions imposed by NHDES. As with current snowmaking operations, no withdrawal would occur if stream flow was less than the required minimum. To insure that minimum flow requirements are met, Waterville Valley’s water withdrawal intake structures are set at an elevation that prevents withdrawal of water when flow is less than the required minimum. Furthermore, Waterville Valley is required by the Forest Service to annually re-survey the stream cross-section at their snowmaking withdrawal site and reset the elevation of their intakes prior to each ski season.
20 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
The Proposed Action would require running spur snowmaking air and water lines, most likely off existing snowmaking lines on Valley Run. A small, doghouse-sized valve house would be constructed to separate the lines and to house a booster pump, pending final engineering. Because engineering has not yet been completed for this system expansion, the exact location of the valve house and the booster pump requirements are not known. However, its location would be at a site that provides the greatest energy efficiency and one that would not require additional tree clearing. Upgrades to the base air compressor and water pumping systems are not anticipated. Energy efficient snowmaking guns would be used.
Project Revisions since Scoping
Some modifications have been made to the background description and the Proposed Action to reflect updated information obtained since the December 2011 Project Scoping Report was distributed. The Scoping Report mistakenly listed Waterville Valley’s skiable terrain as 259 acres, while the actual value is approximately 220 acres. The Purpose and Need at the time of scoping included the expansion of beginner terrain as a need for the project; however, no new beginner terrain would be created. Rather, it is the intent of the Proposed Action to increase safety and improve the guest experience for all skiers by providing more terrain for novice and intermediate skiers, allowing less congestion on existing beginner and novice trails and to provide a more gradual continuum of terrain from lower mountain experiences to summit experiences.
In addition, the location of the lower end of the new trails as well as the location of the new BBTS Competition building was altered slightly from the original design to avoid or minimize effects to wetlands and surface waters. Tree clearing for the new BBTS building increased from 2,400 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. to accommodate a small, cleared area surrounding the building.
Forest Plan Amendment
The Green Peak project would be consistent with all Forest Plan standards except one for Canada lynx. Currently 42% of the total lynx habitat in LAU 11 is in an unsuitable condition for lynx (See Biological Evaluation in the Project Record for lynx definitions). The project would convert approximately 41 acres (0.3%) of suitable foraging habitat into open ski trails and a glade, with undisturbed forest inclusions. Forest Service biologists discussed the intent of this standard and conditions associated with this project with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agencies agreed that the effects of this to lynx are minor to nonexistent. Although lynx may be recolonizing former habitats
21 Environmental Assessment
in New Hampshire, recent occurrences are considerably further north than the project area. In addition, although the stands in question may meet the definition of suitable foraging habitat, their proximity to highly developed areas (Waterville Valley Ski Area, the town of Waterville Valley, and Highway 49) makes this specific location marginal at best for lynx use.
Therefore a site-specific Forest Plan amendment is proposed that would allow the project to go forward as proposed (italics indicate proposed amendment text). S-3 Unless a broad-scale assessment of landscape patterns that compares historical and current ecological processes and vegetation patterns is developed, disturbance must be limited in the following manner: a. If more than 30 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur because of vegetation management activities by federal agencies unless the activity is proposed specifically to improve future snowshoe hare habitat. The Green Peak Expansion Project at the Waterville Valley Ski Resort is an allowed exception to this standard.
Alternatives Considered But Not Developed for Complete Analysis
In response to input received during the scoping process, several additional alternatives were considered for full development. None of the alternatives were fully developed for a variety of reasons.
Visual Resources: In response to comments regarding visual resources and habitat fragmentation, the ID team considered an alternative that would construct narrow trails and glade skiing areas to reduce tree removal. The ID team determined that this project design with narrow trails and glade skiing would not provide appropriate beginner terrain and would pose safety hazards for beginner and intermediate skiers.
Fewer New Trails: In order to reduce effects to wildlife habitat and scenery, the ID Team considered an alternative that would have constructed a reduced number of trails. It was determined that reducing the number of trails sufficiently to minimize effects to wildlife habitat and scenery would not provide a suitable distribution of trails for each ability level of skiers at Waterville Valley.
Reduced Lift Tower Heights: Modification to the chairlift, such as reducing tower height, in response to comments on visual appeal, was found to be inconsistent with industry design and safety standards for the chairlift. Tower height is dictated by manufacturers design and Forest Service review of lift specifications.
Therefore, no additional alternatives were developed for analysis.
22 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
2.3 Issues Identification
Public scoping brought forth a number of ideas, suggestions and important information used in developing and analyzing this project. The ID team reviewed all public comments, identified the issues raised, and determined how they would be used in the analysis (see Scoping Content Analysis in the project file).
Some issues were identified as being conjectural, outside the scope of the project or already decided by law or regulation. These issues were not used in the analysis. The ID team developed issue statements (listed below) for the remaining issues. The issue statements were derived from one or more comments received expressing concern on a particular topic.
The ID team evaluated these issues to determine if they could be addressed through the use of mitigation measures or in the effects analysis, or if an alternative would be needed to address any of them. Alternatives were considered to address three of the issues (numbers 2, 4, and 5), though none of those alternatives were analyzed in detail for various reasons (see Section 2.2). The team determined that all these issues would be most appropriately addressed in the effects analysis for the associated resource (see Chapter 3).
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
1. There is concern that the Proposed Action would affect species, individuals or their habitat that are listed for Federal or State protection or are listed on the Eastern Region (R9) Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List, including bats, Peregrine falcons, and Bicknell’s thrush.
2. There is concern that implementation of the Proposed Action, specifically tree removal and trail development, would result in habitat fragmentation for listed and non-listed species.
Water
1. There is concern that there would not be adequate water availability to cover the new terrain with snowmaking, that the increased need for water availability would result in exceeding the current minimum flow standards in the Mad River, set at 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm) and that the minimum flow of 0.5 csm may not be high enough to protect aquatic habitat.
23 Environmental Assessment
Visual Appeal
1. There is concern that the chairlift towers would affect the views from nearby mountains.
2. There is concern that the overall visual effect of the proposed development would not fit the current appealing visual character of Waterville Valley.
Climate Change
1. There is concern that the removal of trees needed for trail development would increase global warming and affect climate change.
2.4 Resources Not Analyzed in Detailed
As discussed in Section 1.4, this site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) has been designed to comply with the regulations established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with NEPA at the project level through an EA uses the environmental analysis process to disclose the environmental effects of the proposed activities and determine if an Environmental Statement (EIS) is warranted. An EA is not intended to be a complete discussion of all potential environmental and human variables. Unlike an EIS which by NEPA regulation must be comprehensive, an EA is only required to “briefly” discuss the need for the Proposed Action, the alternatives, if any, and the environmental effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives. The Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project analysis documented in this EA is tiered to the Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2005b; EIS) and Record of Decision (USDA 2005c; ROD) for the 2005 Forest Plan. All of the expected effects from this project are consistent with, and within the range of, the expected effects disclosed in the Forest Plan EIS and its supplements with the exception of one Forest Plan Standard and Guideline for Canada lynx, as discussed in Section 2.2.
The following resources were considered during project development and at the start of the effects analysis, but have not been carried forward for further analysis in this EA for one or more of the following reasons: the Proposed Action will not affect them; the effects are so negligible that they are unable to be analyzed; the effects are within the expected range of operational effects of Waterville Valley as currently permitted; and/or there was no comment received from the public that would indicate concern over these resources.
There are no known historic or cultural/heritage resources within the Project Area (see the project file for a site-survey).
24 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
While this project is intended to increase visitation to Waterville Valley, visitation and associated traffic are not expected to exceed levels achieved during the 1990s. Accordingly, it is anticipated that traffic will remaining at levels already anticipated and designed for with respect to existing highway, parking and shuttle bus infrastructure already in place.
Noise levels are anticipated to be consistent with the typical operational levels of a ski resort and with the exception of temporary construction sounds during tree removal and chairlift installation, would not increase substantially beyond what currently occurs. The proposed expansion would not increase noise levels at any new sensitive noise receptors.
Because this project would not be expected to increase traffic beyond previously achieved levels and because modern snowmaking fan gun operations have substantially reduced energy needs associated with snowmaking, the Forest Service has concluded that potential effects to air resources would be negligible.
There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas, designated or eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers, or Wilderness Areas within or near the Project Area.
\ 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives
The proposed alternatives differ by several factors. Table 2.5-1 displays and compares each alternative and summarizes the environmental effects of each alternative on various biological, physical, social and economic resources that are disclosed in more detail in Chapter 3.
25 Environmental Assessment
Table 2.5-1 Summary of Alternatives Analysis
Resource Area Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B: Proposed Action 3.1 Water No change to most water No significant effect with implementation of Forest Service resources. Greater water Standards and Guidelines; no change to snowmaking availability for snowmaking withdrawal minimum flows. Greater water availability for anticipated because of global snowmaking anticipated because of global warming. warming. 3.2 Soils No change No significant effect with implementation of Forest Service Standards and Guidelines. 3.3 Fisheries and No change No significant effect with implementation of Forest Service Aquatic Standards and Guidelines; no change to snowmaking withdrawal minimum flows. 3.4 Vegetation No change Conversion of 44 acres of forest vegetation, replaced with and NNIS vegetation typical of ski trails; risk of NNIS introduction minimized through implementation of Forest Service Standards and Guidelines control measures. No significant effects to or from global warming. 3.5 Wildlife No change Conversion of 44 acres of forested habitat, but no substantial effect to any wildlife species. 3.6 TEPS and No change Proposed project-specific Forest Plan amendment to RFSS address minor to nonexistent impacts to Canada lynx habitat. No impact to TEPS and RFSS animals and plants. 3.7 Visual No change Project consistent with Scenic Integrity Objectives for MA 7.1. 3.8 Winter No change. More aggressive Improvement in winter recreation opportunities. More Recreation snowmaking may be needed to aggressive snowmaking may be needed to adapt to adapt to expected impacts of expected impacts of climate change. climate change. 3.9 No short-term change; potential Anticipated improvement in direct, indirect and Socioeconomic long-term gradual decline in cumulative socioeconomic benefits from the resort socioeconomic benefits from the resort.
26 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
3 Existing Conditions and Environmental Effects
This chapter discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects to the physical, biological, social, and economic resources from the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative as described in Chapter 2. It consists of a description of the existing conditions for each affected resource area, and then summarizes the environmental effects of each alternative. These effects are summarized in a comparative format in Table 2.5-1 in Chapter 2. Detailed background information or raw data (i.e., results of field surveys) from which the environmental effects are concluded can be found in the project file.
For each resource area, an analysis area is identified in both space (how broad a geographic area should be analyzed) and time (how far into the past and the future should be analyzed). A rationale is provided for these bounds. The analysis area described for the direct and indirect effects for each resource discipline may differ depending on the characteristics of the resource. Since cumulative effects are based on the time and geographical space of the effects of other actions that may overlap with the Proposed Action, the analysis area for cumulative effects may differ from that described for direct and indirect effects for the same resource. Actions on NFS and non-NFS lands are included when considering cumulative effects.
Assessment of Cumulative Effects
NEPA regulations state that an appropriate analysis of cumulative effects requires that “the incremental effect of the [present] action” be “added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions” (40 CFR § 1508.7). Per Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 220), a reasonably foreseeable action on NFS lands is one for which the Forest Service has received a proposal which describes the Proposed Action in sufficient detail (when, where, how) to allow for substantive effects analysis. Reasonably foreseeable future actions need to overlap with direct and indirect effects in both space and time. Therefore, both when and where an activity will occur are required in order to know whether the Proposed Action would add measurable cumulative effects when combined with such projects. A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit supports this concept, stating that future projects must be at a point in development that allows for meaningful discussion of effects for it to be considered reasonably foreseeable (Habitat Education Center, Inc., et al. v. USFS, 2012).
27 Environmental Assessment
The Waterville Valley Master Development Plan (MDP) includes a conceptual development framework for the ski area. It describes the possible projects that might be proposed for development and implementation over a 10 to 20 year period. The MDP includes possible projects that might overlap with or be in close proximity to the current Proposed Action. However, because these projects have not been developed or formally proposed, the details of those projects are not known, which precludes the ability to substantively analyze their respective cumulative effects. More importantly, the timing of implementation of MDP projects, or even if they will be implemented, is unknown. Therefore whether the projects described in the MDP will overlap in space and time with direct and indirect effects cannot be determined. Until the possible actions in the MDP are brought forth in a proposal and accepted as an application with sufficient descriptive detail, they are not reasonably foreseeable future actions.
3.1 Water Resources
The issues central to water resources focus on water availability for snowmaking: First, would the water needs for snow coverage of the new terrain result in withdrawals exceeding the minimum flow standards in the Mad River, irrespective of minimum flow requirements, and second, is the current minimum flow requirement of 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile (cms) sufficient to protect aquatic habitat.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
The watershed area for the Mad River is shown in Figure 3.1-1. Most of the watershed is downstream of the project area. While the downstream limits of the direct and indirect effects of the project would in theory be all of the Mad River downstream of the project area and even beyond, consideration of potentially significant effects to water resources more practically limits the direct and indirect analysis area to those stream, river, wetland and seasonal pool waterbodies that receive runoff from areas that would be disturbed and/or modified by the Proposed Action and to the Mad River immediately downstream of the snowmaking withdrawal structure. Accordingly, the analysis area for the direct and indirect effects on water resources is substantially smaller than the Mad River watershed downstream of the project area, as shown in Figure 3.1-2.
Existing Conditions
Surface Waters
The Mad River (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code HUC8 01070001) is the principal water resource associated with the Proposed Action. The Mad River is part of the
28 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Figure 3.1-1. Mad River Watershed Area.
29 Environmental Assessment
Figure 3.1-2. Green Peak Expansion Project Water Resources Map.
30 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Pemigewasset River drainage basin, joining the Pemigewasset River in the Town of Campton, NH, approximately 12.5 miles southwest of the ski area. The Mad River watershed is approximately 61 square miles at its mouth and located almost entirely within the southern portion of the White Mountain National Forest. The Mad River is approximately 17.9 miles long originating at Greeley Ponds in Mad River Notch, a gap between East Peak of Mount Osceola and Mount Kancamagus in Livermore, NH and flowing in a southwesterly direction to its confluence with the Pemigewasset near Interstate-93 in Campton. The Mad River is characterized as a moderately fast-flowing stream with coarse bottom material including boulder, rubble and minor sand and gravel. Tributaries to the Mad River within or near the analysis area include the West Branch of the Mad River, Tecumseh Brook, Snows Brook, and Corcoran Pond, a 5.2 acre impoundment on Snows Brook, as well as several unnamed intermittent streams (Figure 3.1-2). The unnamed streams are direct or indirect tributaries to the Mad River and are located on the west side of the river along the base of Mount Tecumseh between the confluences of the West Branch and Snows Brook.
In September, 2011, Normandeau Associates, Inc. conducted a surface water survey of the proposed areas of disturbance (NAI 2012b). The majority of the streams on site are small ephemeral and intermittent streams that drain north into an unnamed perennial stream (S-6) flowing in the ravine between Valley Run and Stillness ski trails (Figure 3.1- 3). This perennial stream channel ranges in width from approximately 3 to 30 feet. It has been further channelized by trail building activities that have built the banks up to a height from 3 to 15 feet with large boulders. Many of the smaller streams begin at water- bars and culverts under existing trails or access roads before forming defined channels in the adjacent forest. All of the streams located on site appear to have been affected by Tropical Storm Irene, a major precipitation event occurring in late August, 2011, prior to surveys. Extensive deposition of coarse material is evident in most channels as a result of overtopped and eroded culverts and ditches, as well as natural streams that were flowing beyond capacity. In general, the culverts that were overtopped and eroded by the effects of Tropical Storm Irene, estimated to be a 100-year storm event, were structures that had been in place since the trail was originally constructed in the 1970’s. Updated Best Management Practices for ski trail construction and contouring as well as revised guidelines for culvert sizing would avoid similar effects in the future.
Surface Water Quality
The overall water quality in the Mad River watershed is considered to be good to excellent. Section 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires states to
31 Environmental Assessment
monitor the quality of surface waters, publish the results periodically, and to list those waters that are impaired with respect to one or more Water Quality Criteria and are in need of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determination. The following waters within or adjacent to the analysis area are listed on the NH 2010 Integrated Listing of Threatened or Impaired Waters That Require a TMDL (which includes both 305(b) and 303(d) waters; NHDES 2010):
the 0.9 mile stretch of the Mad River as it winds through the Village of Waterville is marginally impaired for aquatic life due to low pH from unknown sources; and
1.4 miles of the Mad River below the Village are marginally impaired for aquatic life for low pH from unknown causes.
Low pH is typical across the WMNF and may be due to a combination of naturally low buffering capacity in the soil and bedrock of Forest watersheds, naturally occurring organic acids and human-caused acid deposition effects (Hornbeck, et al. 2001). The Mad River and its tributaries are classified as Class B waters according to the State of New Hampshire (RSA 485-A:8). Class B waters are considered suitable for fishing, swimming and other recreational purposes and, after adequate treatment, for use as water supplies. The river quality is high enough to support all stages of life for resident trout and non-game species such as longnosed dace and slimy sculpin. The Mad River is currently an important Atlantic salmon rearing river for the Merrimack River Atlantic salmon restoration program.
Hydrology
The Mad River watershed consists of steep terrain with an elevation change of approximately 2,500 feet in the watershed of the project area; this type of terrain lends itself to rapid flooding as was seen during Tropical Storm Irene.
Snowmaking
Waterville Valley currently withdraws water from the Mad River for snowmaking at a point approximately 450 feet east of the Tripoli Road crossing. Under agreement with the Forest Service and with involvement from NH DES and USFWS (at the time of permitting, USFWS was the only agency that had developed minimum flow guidance), Waterville Valley Ski Resort is permitted to withdraw water from the Mad River when streamflow is above the New England average Median August Flow (MAF) of 0.50 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm). At the intake point, the watershed of the Mad
32 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
River consists of 26.1 square miles; thus application of MAF results in a minimum flow requirement of 13 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the point of withdrawal. When the Mad River water flow is greater than 0.5 cfsm, water is pumped from the intake area at a maximum rate of 2,700 gallons per minute (gpm) (6.02 cfs) to a 200,000 gallon holding pond at the base of the ski area.
In addition to the Mad River, Corcoran Pond serves as a secondary water source for snowmaking, providing water at a rate of up to 1,000 gpm when water available for withdrawal in the Mad River flow drops below the minimum flow requirement. Conditions of the withdrawal permit for Corcoran Pond state that outflow must equal inflow. To insure that Waterville Valley does not withdrawal water when the stream flow is less than 0.5 csm, Waterville Valley contracts annually with an independent consulting firm to survey the stream cross section at the point of withdrawal to determine the water surface elevation that equals 0.5 csm. The intake pumps are then set at that elevation which makes it physically impossible to withdraw water if the stream flow drops below 0.5 csm. Forest Service permit administrators verify that this survey has taken place each year and monitor the site throughout the withdrawal season.
In addition, treated wastewater has been historically utilized for snowmaking by Waterville Valley since 1989. This source was temporarily abandoned in 2009, but a recent Groundwater Discharge Permit from NHDES allows renewed utilization of this water. When utilized for snowmaking, the treated wastewater can contribute an additional 380 gpm for snowmaking purposes. Since the time the recent permit was issued, Waterville Valley has not needed to access this additional water supply.
At present, Waterville Valley has snowmaking infrastructure in place to provide machine-made snow on 100% of its trail terrain (~199 acres). The resort attempts to meet two theoretical snow production goals each year: 1) 100% coverage by December 25; and 2) 100% re-coverage by February 1 (Snomatic 2012). Because of the variability of natural snow, snowmaking demand planning generally assumes that snow coverage will be met entirely by machine-made snow. In the absence of natural snowfall, each coverage goal requires approximately 325,000 gallons of water per acre, so the total snowmaking water demand for existing terrain is 64.8 million gallons by December 25 and 129.6 million gallons by February 1. With the existing snowmaking system, Waterville Valley can only meet the December 25 demand in 57% of the years, and the February demand in 83% of the years. While this does not meet the theoretical snowmaking goals, this capacity is sufficient to allow the continued viability of the resort. In some years, natural snowfall
33 Environmental Assessment
mitigates for some of Waterville Valley’s lack of snowmaking capacity, but in others (e.g. 2012), natural snowfall plays almost no role in providing suitable skiing conditions.
Wetlands
In September, 2011, Normandeau Associates, Inc. conducted a wetland survey of the proposed areas of disturbance (NAI 2012b). All identified wetlands were delineated using the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (USACE 2011). Normandeau also conducted vernal pool surveys on June 13, 2010. The entire Green Peak expansion area was reviewed again for potential vernal pools during the 2011 wetland survey and bird surveys.
A total of 2 wetlands, 18 streams and 0 vernal pools were identified during field surveys (NAI 2012b). All of the features occurred on the northeast side of the site, on the lower portion of the Green Peak Expansion Area (Figure 3.1-3).
Wetlands W-1 and W-2 are in close proximity to each other and entirely contained within the existing Lower Stillness trail. These areas are currently subject to a high amount of disturbance, including annual mowing and hydrologic input from snowmaking. It is likely that these actions, combined with past tree removal and grading during trail construction, resulted in compaction and saturation that was not present prior to clearing, thus creating an environment suitable for wetland development. W-1 is approximately 0.46 acres, and W-2 covers 0.18 acres. They are classified as palustrine emergent wetlands dominated by the following herbs associated with disturbance: sallow sedge (Carex lurida), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), fringed sedge (Carex crinita), and New York fern (Thelypteris novaboracensis). Shrub species observed included meadowsweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia), raspberry (Rubus idaeus), and willows (Salix spp.).
Groundwater
Groundwater resources have been studied at Waterville Valley for many years. Hydrogeologic data from test wells drilled in the mid-1990’s showed groundwater availability to be limited to domestic supply only (such as drinking and household use) and insufficient for snowmaking needs. Although most of the area of the Mad River Valley floor has been mapped as a major stratified-drift aquifer by USGS (Cotton and Olimpio 1996), water yield even in these generally water-rich geologic formations is not sufficient to support snowmaking.
34 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Figure 3.1-3. Green Peak Expansion Project Wetlands and Surface Waters.
35 Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect Effects
All ground-disturbing activities have the potential to have direct and indirect effects on water resources.
Alternative A: No-Action
Alternative A would not change the current conditions of water resources. There would be no additional ground-disturbing activities and thus no increased risk of soil erosion and sedimentation or wetland effect. Existing snowmaking withdrawals would continue at the current minimum flow requirements of 0.50 csm and snowmaking on existing terrain would remain the same.
Alternative B: Proposed Action
Alternative B would result in several types of potential effects to water resources as a result of the Proposed Action. These include:
a small increase in runoff quantity during snowmelt due to the increased snow depths and snowmaking coverage on the mountain;
temporary, small increases in erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and increased snowmelt;
no effects to wetlands, but crossing of several ephemeral streams with new ski trails;
crossing one perennial stream by ski trail and lift and an intermittent stream by trail; and,
increased water withdrawal over current withdrawal for snowmaking but maintenance of the existing minimum flow requirement of 0.5 csm.
Each of these potential effects is discussed below.
Increased Runoff
Peak run-off and streamflow during snowmelt events are controlled primarily by climatic conditions affecting the rate of melting. Carlson and Fay (1998) analyzed effects of snowmaking to water resources and concluded that more snow does not usually mean faster melting or increased runoff rates. They found that the maximum water- depth equivalent from snowmelt is approximately 0.5 inches per day, whether it is a natural or artificial snowpack that is melting. As a result, the net effect of an increased snowpack caused by snowmaking on new trails is generally one of a longer snowmelt
36 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
season and a greater duration of the seasonal higher stream flow period instead of an increase in peak runoff quantities. Initially, this prolonged period of higher flows may cause some minor modifications to downstream channel bank and substrate conditions, but those effects appear to be short-term. Snowmaking did not appear to produce long- term erosion effects on the streams examined (Carlson and Fay 1998).
The presence of snow on new ski trails may also reduce peak runoff discharges from those areas because snow can provide additional water storage. The time difference between rain falling on snow and the release of the rain from the snowpack causes slower runoff and a reduction in peak discharges in areas of channelized flow, relative to snow-free area. In addition, areas that receive machine-made snow often produce snowmelt runoff later in the spring due to a denser snowpack which generally takes longer to melt than the snowpack in areas other than ski trails (Carlson and Fay 1998). This delayed runoff effect would be expected to be further aided by the increased volume and density of machine-made snow at Waterville Valley from this proposed project. While there would always be periodic floods due to extreme natural climatic events, and those extreme floods could significantly modify downstream channels (as was seen on the Mad River and elsewhere from Tropical Storm Irene), additional snowmaking would provide only negligibly increased runoff volumes and would therefore not measurably affect winter or spring flooding events. Thus, there would be no significant downstream effects associated with snowmelt runoff.
Carlson and Fay (1998) also reviewed the effects of snowmelt on water quality and found there to be no significant effects for the areas that were examined. Accordingly, it is expected that existing and proposed snowmaking at Waterville Valley has had and would have no significant effect on project area streams.
Erosion and Sedimentation
The Proposed Action would result in substantial, though temporary, soil disturbance from trail and chairlift line clearing and grading, chairlift installation and BBTS building clearing and construction. Earthwork would occur on all new trails due to clearing and grading and in small, localized areas directly in the footprint of the chairlift towers and the new BBTS building. Although approximately 44 acres of forest would eventually be cleared and graded, soil disturbance would be limited in location and duration. Forest Service Standards and Guidelines for trail construction limit linear earth disturbance to no more than 600 lineal feet or 2 acres on any one trail, without stabilization, so the potential for erosion of unstabilized soils is substantially reduced. Furthermore Forest Service Standards and Guidelines require all soil disturbing activities to implement
37 Environmental Assessment
erosion control measures (for example, silt fences, hay bales, rock check dams, etc.) prior to and during disturbance, further limiting the potential for significant erosion and sedimentation. Experience on the Forest and as documented in monitoring reports has shown that these measures are effective in containing erosion and sedimentation. Accordingly, it is expected that sediment entering waterbodies from the Proposed Action would be minor and in compliance with New Hampshire Water Quality Standards as long as the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are followed.
As discussed above, the Proposed Action would not generally result in an increased peak rate of runoff; thus the potential for increased erosion or sedimentation is negligible. And because channel forming flows (i.e., flood flows) would not be affected appreciably, the potential for excessive scouring or channel/bed erosion is minimal.
Wetlands and Surface Waters
The original trail layout as presented in the Scoping Report would have affected one wetland and required crossing of several ephemeral, one intermittent and one perennial stream. The extent of clearing was modified after the scoping process to reduce these effects. The modified alignment of the proposed Green Peak lift and trail expansion reduced all effects to wetlands and reduced s effects to the intermittent and perennial streams (Figure 3.1-4). Effect to one intermittent stream was reduced to 459 square feet. Approximately 50% of this effect results from culverting a portion of the stream that presently flows in a ditch beside a mountain service road. The remaining effect results from replacement of an existing culvert section where the stream crosses Lower Stillness. This culvert replacement provides improved resource protection and allows for the elimination of what would otherwise need to be a 90o turn to accommodate the culverted ditch section.
Effects to the unnamed perennial stream would occur in two locations totaling 1,087 square feet. One section is under the 40-foot wide lift corridor at the base of the lift, where overstory clearing in the perennial stream ravine would be necessary. Waterville Valley would be able to leave the existing understory and allow limited shrub and sapling regeneration to provide shade to the stream channel. The shading would minimize thermal effects to the stream. The current trail connection between Lower Stillness and Valley Run crosses a perennial stream and would be widened approximately 20 feet to the west to relieve congestion as skiers leave the Green Peak area for the main lodge. To avoid direct effects to the stream, a slatted bridge to support skiers and snowmaking will be installed adjacent to the existing culvert; this would require widening the existing crossing by approximately 20 feet. Effects to ephemeral
38 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Figure 3.1-4. Green Peak Expansion Project Effects to Wetlands and Surface Waters.
39 Environmental Assessment
streams would total 1,044 square feet; these effects would be minimized by upgraded trail contouring and culvert sizing and placement.
Snowmaking
With the proposed addition of approximately 44 acres of terrain at Green Peak, Waterville’s snowmaking terrain acreage would increase to about 243 acres. Using the resort goal of 100% coverage, the water demand for snowmaking would increase from 64.8 to 79.0 million gallons by December 25 and from 129.6 to 158.0 million gallons by February 1. With the existing snowmaking withdrawal system, Waterville Valley would only meet the December 25 demand in 43% of the years, and the February demand would only be met in 50% of the years (as compared to 57 and 83%, respectively for the existing terrain). Snowmaking demand and completion modeling by Snomatic (2012) has shown that with increased pumping capacity of approximately 25% and fan gun only coverage in the expansion area, available water is sufficient to meet the December 25 snowmaking demand in 57% of the years and the February 1 snowmaking demand in 83% of the years. This completion is identical to the existing conditions, and while not ideal, Waterville Valley has proven that it is sufficient to allow continued viability of the resort. Snowmaking demand and completion summaries for Alternative A and Alternative B scenarios are shown in Table 3.1-1. Table 3.1-1. Snowmaking Demand and Completion under Existing and Proposed Conditions
Alternative B Alternative Existing on-mountain Modified on-mountain A system system Snowmaking Terrain (acres) 199 243 243 Water Demand (Mgal) for 100% coverage 64.8/57 79.0/43 79.0/57 by Dec. 25/% of years goal achieved Water Demand (Mgal) for 100% coverage 129.6/83 158.0/50 158.0/83 by Feb. 1/% of years goal achieved
It is therefore concluded that the existing sources of snowmaking water are sufficient to meet the increased snowmaking needs of the proposed Green Peak Expansion Project with modification of the on-mountain snowmaking system and continued operation within Waterville Valley historic snowmaking coverage rates.
Cumulative Effects
The analysis area for cumulative effects to water resources is the analysis area for direct and indirect effects to water resources and that portion of the Mad River watershed that
40 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
is upstream of the wastewater discharge outfall for the Town of Waterville Valley. The analysis timeframe is 10 years before and 10 years after present. This timeframe was selected because water quality effects from land use changes resulting from ski trail construction and associated vegetation management, erosion control and stabilization would be expected to stabilize totally within a 10-year timeframe.
The past and present land uses affecting water resources are: public land management activities on the WMNF and private residential or business development within the Town of Waterville Valley. Public land management activities include ski area and cross country ski trail development and maintenance, timber management activities and hiking trail and road maintenance such as those listed in Table 3.1-2. On private lands, construction and maintenance of residential and commercial developments has occurred and is expected to continue within the analysis timeframe and assessment area, including construction and maintenance of roads and facilities to provide water supply and wastewater treatment. Adverse effects to water resources from Waterville Valley Ski Resort’s activities have likely occurred and are likely occurring, but at low and acceptable levels. Development and expansion within the Town of Waterville Valley and at the ski resort has potentially resulted in some level of erosion and sedimentation. Alteration of natural flows and minor increased runoff in the spring due to snowmaking occurs annually during the ski season and immediately thereafter. Some of these actions may have affected water quality, but none of the analysis area water resources are listed as impaired by NHDES (except for pH, the source of which is likely atmospheric), which indicates the past and present effects are acceptable from a water quality perspective. Implementation of federal, state and local regulations governing these activities has mitigated potential effects.
Recently developed or proposed projects on the WMNF that provide opportunity for potential cumulative effects from the Green Peak Expansion Project are shown in Table 3.1-2. For each of these projects, resource effects have been avoided, reduced or minimized to the extent that they are not significant.
The foreseeable future actions/land uses are expected to be similar to those of the present. Private development will continue as envisioned by the Town of Waterville Valley in its longstanding Master Plan. Additional timber harvesting on public lands is not presently planned within the cumulative effects area and timeframe. Limited ski area expansion and other less significant trail expansion may occur within the Special Use Permit boundary. Projects on the Forest would not be expected to affect water resources within the analysis area because of implementation of Forest Plan Standards
41 Environmental Assessment
and Guidelines and, if necessary, appropriate mitigation strategies. Effects from private development for home sites, roads, other development sites, and recreational activities are more difficult to quantify, but effects to water resources are likely to continue at low
Table 3.1-2. Recent or Probable Future Projects within the WMNF to be considered for Cumulative Effects
Past Recent or Future 1997-2002 Green Mountain Timber Sale, 158 2012 Addition of Communication Building on Acres Treated in 2002 Mount Tecumseh Communications Site 2003-2007 Hix Mountain Timber Sale, 184 Acres 2012 Mad River Path Trail Reconstruction in the Sandwich Range 2005 Waterville Valley Tree Skiing Project 2012 100 foot XC Town WV Ski Bridge Replacement 2006 Valley Run Trail Widening 2012-2013 Conversion of Campton Group Campground to Campton Day Use Area 2007 Waterville Valley Test Well Drilling Sites 2012/13 Waterville Valley Municipal Water for a Town Water Supply Well Project 2008 Forest-wide Wildlife Opening 2013 Tripoli Road & Campsite Redesign Maintenance 2010 Swans Way Nordic Trail Relocation 2013 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Project Relocation 2011 Greeley Ponds Trail and Flume Brook 2013 Waterville Valley Municipal Water Well Trail Closure Project. 2011 Use of Mt Tecumseh for Boy Scout 2013/2014 Waterville Valley Super G course Jamboree, Possible Reuse of this Site every Four Years for Same Activity 2011 Closure of Campton Group CG to Overnight Camping and Motorized Access
levels, in part because private lands account for less than 5% of Mad River watershed in the analysis area and in part because continued implementation of federal, state and local regulations would be expected to mitigate potential effects to acceptable levels. Downstream of the Mad River snowmaking intake, streamflow would continue to be modified during periods of water withdrawal. Because this withdrawal would continue to meet the current minimum flow requirement of 0.5 csm (permit administrators monitor the water withdrawal intake annually), no significant effects to aquatic resources would be expected. Continued development activity within the Town of
42 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Waterville Valley and improved skier visitation to the resort would be expected to increase wastewater treatment and disposal volumes, but not beyond the currently constructed and permitted capacity of the treatment plant; thus no adverse effects to water quality are expected from increased wastewater disposal.
Consequently, it is concluded that the Proposed Action would not add any measurable cumulative effect to water resources when combined with recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the analysis area.
Snowmaking in a Globally Warming Environment
The potential future effects of global warming and climate change on snowmaking efforts in the Northeast are uncertain. There is strong evidence from a wide variety of observations that the world as a whole is warming at an increasing rate (USFS 2010). Since 1899, the average annual temperature in the Northeast has increased approximately 2o F (Wake and Markham 2005), with average winter seasonal temperatures increasing by approximately 3o F (Wake and Markham 2005). During the period between 1970 and 2000, average winter seasonal temperatures in the Northeast increased by approximately 4oF (USC 2006; Rustad, et al 2012). Average annual precipitation in the Northeast has not shown a definitive trend over the past century (USFS 2010a); however, the portion of total annual precipitation that fell as snow in northern New Hampshire and Maine declined between 1949 and 2000 (Huntington et al 2004) and between 1971 and 2000 there was a decline in the number of days with snow on the ground in Durham, NH of almost 30 days (Wake and Markham 2005). The average growing season in the Northeast has expanded by eight days in the 20th century, with most occurring after 1970 (USC 2006).
Predictive modeling efforts that attempt to estimate the climate in the future continue to improve but are based on inherent sensitivities or biases that produce inconsistent results upon comparison (USFS 2010a). Because data output is given at a global or continental scale, translating that to a regional level creates considerable uncertainty. However, based on a combination of climate predictions from a model called Climate Wizard, and a review of scientific literature by the Forest Service, temperatures are expected to increase in and around the WMNF by several degrees F in the next three decades (USFS 2010a, Rustad, et al 2012).
Even so, the potential effect of global warming, at least here in the northeast and at the levels discussed above, can be mitigated at our more northern and higher elevation ski resorts, including Waterville Valley, by implementing more aggressive snowmaking
43 Environmental Assessment
(Dawson and Scott 2013). This would require larger and more reliable sources of snowmaking water (generally storage ponds) and greater on-mountain pumping and snowmaking capacity. In much the same way that more southern resorts operate now, our more northern snowmaking systems may need to be upgraded to take greater advantage of the smaller but still reasonably dependable snowmaking windows of opportunity. As long as global warming in the Northeast is consistent with current forecasts, most New Hampshire ski areas should be able to adapt and thrive in a globally warming climate (Burakowski and Magnusson 2012).
At Waterville Valley, any proposal for increasing snowmaking capacity in response to climate change would require separate NEPA review and analysis. Given the uncertainty of regional climate change models, the need for increased snowmaking is not presently foreseeable and is therefore not considered in this document.
3.2 Soil Resources
There is concern that the Proposed Action could cause increased stormwater runoff and associated erosion and reduced soil nutrients.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to soil resources is that portion of the Mad River watershed as described in Section 3.1 except for those portions downstream of the snowmaking withdrawal intake and the wastewater discharge outfall which are too far removed from the action areas to be significantly affected.
Existing Conditions
A detailed Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for the project area is not available. Per Forest Service recommendation, Forest Service Ecological Land Type (ELT) data was used to review for shallow soils and ledge. Table 3.2-1 gives detailed information about these soil types. A site verification of ELT boundaries and questionable soils was conducted by Normandeau Associates, Inc. (NAI) over a 3-day period from October 11 to October 13, 2011.
ELT Mapping
The ELT 2 map unit, Softwood Knolls, Ridges and Steep Side Slopes with Ledgy, Bouldery Soils, follows the upper-most elevation of Green Peak, extending from an elevation of approximately 2040 feet upslope to 2840 feet at the peak. The ridge, which trends in a northeasterly direction, is steep to moderately steep, with cliffs and
44 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
extremely steep side slopes to the east along the edge of the Project Area. Observations within the map unit confirmed that the area mapped as ELT 2 contains extensive areas of bedrock and associated shallow soils which are assumed to make up at least 50% of the map unit. Table 3.2-1. Ecological Land Types mapped within the Waterville Valley Green Peak Project Area.
ELT Soil Description Code
ELT 2 Soil materials are typically bouldery to very bouldery, friable, non-plastic rapidly permeable sandy loams, one to two feet deep to bedrock. Boulders range from 30 to 60% of total volume. Soil textures range from sandy loams to loamy sand and are moderately well to moderately poorly graded. Inclusions include: ELT 14 and ELT 6.
ELT 6 Very bouldery, very non-plastic, very permeable. Textures range from moderately well to well drained sandy loam, which are deep over till and occasional ledge. Colluviums contain 40 to 60% by volume of rock fragments, 6 inches to 4 feet in diameter. Inclusions include: ELT 2 and ELT 105.
ELT Soils are deep over slightly to densely compact till. Textures are poorly graded, ranging from 115a sandy loam to silt loam. Cobbles and boulders are typically less than 20% by volume. Inclusions include: ELT 115c and ELT111.
The ELT 6 map unit, Predominantly Softwoods on Steep Upper Mountain Side Slopes with Deep Bouldery Colluvium, is generally very steep to moderately steep within the Project Area. Surface boulders represent greater than 15% cover. Bedrock outcrops were noted at a number of locations. Separate observations of shallow soils were also noted. Observations of shallow soils may indicate subsurface boulders rather than bedrock but could not be differentiated with a hand auger and are noted as shallow to bedrock requiring a revision to the ELT.
The map unit boundary for ELT 2 has been revised on Figure 3.2-1 based on site observations. The northeastern most segment of the unit does not reflect shallow to bedrock conditions and therefore should be considered ELT 6. Based on observations of either bedrock or shallow soils, the area of ELT 2 has been extended to the north and west into an area previously mapped as ELT 6. The bedrock outcrops reflect ELT 2 conditions while the area of shallow soils without bedrock outcrops may just be a reflection of extremely stony and bouldery subsurface soils.
45 Environmental Assessment
USFS
Figure 3.2-1. Green Peak Expansion Project and USFS Ecological Land Types.
46 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
ELT 115a map unit, Softwood-Hardwood Lower Slopes and Depressions with Thick Compacted Sediments, is located within the lower section of the study area, bordering the existing Stillness Trail. The area north of the Trail has been affected by past trail construction with boulder piles randomly situated within the woods. A section of the northern bank of a perennial stream flowing between two trails has nearly 100% cover of boulders probably placed there during past trail construction.
Erosion Potential
The soil textures within the three ELT’s are primarily fine sandy loam with scattered areas of organic soils (folistic epipedons). The erosion potential for shallow to bedrock soils with either fine sandy loam soils or soils with folistic epipedons on steep slopes are considered severe by NRCS. The erosion potential on high elevation, deep soils, with moderate to steep slopes is considered moderate. Consequently, the anticipated erosion potential within ELT 2 is severe and moderate for ELT 6 and ELT 115a.
Direct and Indirect Effects
The degree and extent to which a Proposed Action affects soil is a function of the extent (acres) of disturbance, the severity of disturbance (for example, a thinning results in less soil disturbance than a clear cut), and the ability of the soil to resist change due to certain soil characteristics.
Alternative A – No action
Alternative A would not result in soil disturbing activities. Soils would be undisturbed on Green Peak. In areas currently developed as part of ski area operations, soils would not be subject to disturbance outside of the ongoing operations typical to a ski resort; thus erosion and stormwater runoff would not change from current levels. Inherent soil processes and functions would continue, and soils would become more enriched because all biomass would remain on-site. There would be no increase in snowmaking and therefore no increase in runoff from current conditions.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Alternative B would have minimal direct and indirect effects on soil erosion and runoff. Construction of the chairlift and clearing, stumping and grading of ski trails would create substantial soil disturbance. As shown on Figure 3.2-1, a significant percent of the area that would be cleared for new ski trails has a severe erosion potential. However, Waterville Valley has extensive and proven experience with ski trail soil
47 Environmental Assessment
stabilizing/revegetation methods from their Forest Service-approved operations and maintenance of their existing ski terrain. Any potential effects would be minimized by the use of erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC) measures such as barrier fences/construction fences, silt fences, water bars, sediment traps, swales and check dams, stabilized outfalls and temporary and permanent soil stabilization efforts. All EPSC measures would be implemented in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Standards and Guidelines for MA 7.1 also limit the amount of contiguous exposed mineral soil to no more than 600 total slope feet (and no greater than two acres) on any ski trail; this limits the amount of exposed soil at any one time which further protects soil resources. Because soil disturbance is limited to the immediate construction period and exposed soil is limited in extent to 600 total slope feet and protected by proven EPSC, no significant direct or indirect effects to soil resources are anticipated.
The Forest Plan does not allow whole tree removal on thin ledge soils without mitigation. Waterville Valley would mitigate potential nutrient loss from tree removal by chipping small trees and leaving tops and limbs of trees onsite to meet the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
Cumulative Effects
The analysis area for cumulative effects to soil resources is the same as that identified for Water Resources, as identified in Section 3.1, but the analysis timeframe for assessment of the cumulative effects of past, present, and future soil disturbing activities includes 50 years in the past, when acid deposition began to affect soil productivity, and extends 10 years into the future.
Within the analysis timeframe and area, there have been many past activities that have affected soils. The resource issue to be addressed in this cumulative effects analysis is the need to maintain or improve long-term soil productivity. In order to maintain soil productivity, organic matter and fertility must be retained, and soil displacement (mixing and physically moving soil from one place to another), compaction, erosion and the introduction of contaminants must be prevented. Past and present land uses/actions which have reduced soil productivity are development within the Town of Waterville Valley, ski area development within the WMNF and various types of recreational use on both private and public lands. The effects of these land uses/actions on soil productivity have not been quantified; however, reasonable assumptions about the effects can be made. Development includes construction and maintenance of roads, homes, businesses and associated water supply and wastewater disposal systems, all of which result in
48 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
some localized losses in long-term soil productivity. For example, construction of a new road would result in soil displacement, compaction and potentially erosion. Development of ski terrain requires tree cutting, stumping, grading, limited snowmaking line burial, work roads, parking lots, access roads and ski lodge and accessory building construction, all of which have resulted in localized loss of soil productivity. Recreational activities in the form of hiking and cross country ski trails add to the cumulative loss of soil productivity. Timber harvests in the analysis area may also temporarily affect soils.
The foreseeable future action/land uses in the analysis area are expected to have effects similar to recent past and present activities, mainly soil displacement and compaction and reduced soil productivity (See Table 3.1-2). These projects have the potential to affect soil resources within the analysis area during both construction and operation of the projects; effects could include erosion, displacement, compaction and loss of soil productivity.
Federal, state and local regulations are designed to minimize current and future project- related effects on soils. These regulations have been and would continue to be effective in reducing the severity of soil effects; however, there will continue to be minor effects to soil resources from additional projects both on and off NFS lands.
The cumulative effect of past, present and future actions/land uses on long-term soil productivity is difficult to quantify but can be estimated to range between locally minor to major, depending on the type of effect. However, within the analysis area as a whole, these actions have not significantly reduced soil productivity, as evidenced by the well- vegetated landscape. Similarly, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would contribute minimal and insignificant cumulative effects to analysis area soils productivity.
3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
There is concern that the Proposed Action could affect fisheries habitat due to changes in water withdrawal, increased runoff, stream sedimentation and aquatic habitat degradation.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to fisheries is that portion of the Mad River watershed as described in Water Resources (Section 3) and includes those areas adjacent to, along and downstream of streams and riparian areas where fisheries habitat
49 Environmental Assessment
could be disturbed or affected by vegetation removal, water withdrawal or wastewater discharge.
Existing Conditions
The Mad River is the principal water resource which provides habitat for fish that would be affected directly and indirectly by the Proposed Action. Historic fish surveys indicated that the Mad River and its tributaries were dominated by eastern brook trout with smaller components of white sucker, sculpin and dace (Marancik 1976). The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHF&G) stocks the Mad River with two species of fish to encourage recreational fishing: eastern brook trout and rainbow trout. Table 3.3-1 provides the age, species of fish, and quantity stocked in the Mad River in 2011. It is expected that perennial tributaries to the Mad River all contain native eastern brook trout, but it is not expected that intermittent streams, particularly within the Project Area, would contain fish.
NHF&G, in partnership with USFWS, participates in the Merrimack River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. The Program began in 1969 as a cooperative effort of NHF&G, the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Forest Service. As part of this program, Atlantic salmon restoration began in 1976 and is ongoing. Agencies continue to capture sea-run adult salmon at the Essex Dam in Lawrence, MA and transfer these fish to the Nashua National Fish Hatchery for egg production, while sea-run kelts are maintained at the North Attleboro National Fish Hatchery to support stock development. Salmon fry are used to stock tributaries to the Merrimack River, including the Pemigewasset River and its East Branch, Souhegan River, Piscataquog River, Smith River, Baker River and Mad River (NHF&G 2011).
Direct and Indirect Effects
The Forest Plan Goals for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat (Forest Plan pp. 1-15) include the following: Protect, restore, or improve riparian area conditions to benefit riparian dependent resources and values; and manage riparian areas to provide for coldwater, coolwater and warmwater aquatic communities within the ecological capability of the landscape. This framework is useful for estimating the potential effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on fisheries habitat and resources.
50 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Table 3.3-1. Mad River Fish Stocking 2011 Town Species Age Number Campton Eastern Brook Trout 1+YR 1,000 Farmington Eastern Brook Trout 1+YR 250 Thornton Eastern Brook Trout 1+YR 1,250 Thornton Eastern Brook Trout 2+YR 100 Thornton Rainbow Trout 1+YR 555 Waterville Valley Eastern Brook Trout 1+YR 1,250 Waterville Valley Eastern Brook Trout 2+YR 100 Waterville Valley Rainbow Trout 1+YR 555 Source: NHF&G 2011 stocking report http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/Stocking/2011/full.html
As discussed fully in Section 3.2, the Proposed Action would result in temporary soil disturbance. Any potential water quality effects due to erosion would be minimized by implementation of appropriate erosion control measures. Soil sediments entering waterbodies and floodplain areas from the Proposed Action would be minor as long as the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, FSM 2526.03, and associated design criteria are followed.
Water for snowmaking would be withdrawn, when available while maintaining required minimum flows, from the existing snowmaking withdrawal pump station on the Mad River.
The Proposed Action would result in effects to 522 linear feet (1044 square feet) of ephemeral stream, 153 linear feet (459 square feet) of intermittent stream and 122 linear feet (1087 square feet) of perennial stream.
Alternative A – No action
Alternative A would not result in effects to fisheries and aquatic resources. Soils would not be subject to disturbance, thus erosion and stormwater runoff would not change from current levels. There would be no increase in snowmaking and therefore no additional modification of streamflow in the Mad River. There would be no effects to ephemeral, intermittent or perennial streams within the Project Area. Consequently, no effects to fisheries and aquatic resources would be expected under this alternative.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Alternative B would result in minor and insignificant effects to fisheries and aquatic resources. Construction related effects due to chairlift installation and trail construction would be negligible with implementation of appropriate erosion control measures. No significant sedimentation to the Mad River or surrounding riparian habitats would result from soil
51 Environmental Assessment
disturbing activities. Any potential water quality effects due to erosion would be minimized by implementation of appropriate erosion control measures. Soil sediments entering waterbodies and floodplain areas from the Proposed Action would be minimized and in compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, FSM 2526.03, and associated design criteria. Therefore, no effects to fish or aquatic resources from soil erosion or stream sedimentation are anticipated.
Water for snowmaking would be withdrawn, when available, from the existing snowmaking withdrawal pump station on the Mad River. However, as with current operations, no water would be withdrawn when stream flow was at or below 0.5 csm which is the existing permitted minimum flow value for Waterville Valley. No changes to the pumphouse or intake structure are proposed. Therefore, no adverse effect on fish or aquatic resources is expected.
The Proposed Action would result in effects to 522 linear feet (1044 square feet) of ephemeral stream, 153 linear feet (459 square feet) of intermittent stream and 122 linear feet (1087 square feet) of perennial stream. Potential effects have been minimized to the extent feasible by modifying trail locations and widths, culverting an intermittent stream located in an existing work road ditch and bridging with a temporary bridge the only perennial stream crossing. The culvert replacement/installation on the intermittent stream would be accomplished “in the dry” during a period of low/no flow. All of the affected streams are isolated from the rest of the Mad River watershed by Waterville Valley’s existing, on-mountain snowmaking pond. If fish are present in any of these streams, effects to them would have little ecological consequence due to the probably low numbers of fish potentially affected and their isolation from other fish populations. Effects to aquatic resources due to overstory clearing, culverting and bridging are anticipated to result in negligible effect to the temperature regime and overall aquatic ecology of these streams.
Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects to fisheries and aquatic resources is the same as that identified for Water resources, as identified in Section 3.1, and downstream to the Campton Dam. The analysis timeframe for assessment of the cumulative effects of past, present, and future fisheries and aquatic habitat disturbing activities includes 50 years in the past and extends 10 years into the future. The resource issues of primary importance include maintenance and improvement of fisheries and fishery habitat by maintaining minimum flows associated with snowmaking withdrawals, continuing to control
52 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
erosion and improving those water quality parameters that directly or indirectly affect fishery resources.
Although much of the Mad River watershed was heavily logged during the early 1900s, establishment of the WMNF allowed for reforestation of the vast majority of the watershed, resulting in largely restored watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. Nevertheless, past and present land use activities in the form of residential and commercial development in the Town of Waterville Valley and recreational activities including ski area development on the WMNF all have likely contributed to minor effects on fisheries and aquatic resources from resulting temporary erosion and sedimentation and streamflow modification from domestic water supply and snowmaking withdrawals. However, implementation of federal, state and local regulations regarding erosion control have effectively limited potential effects from erosion to acceptable levels. Similarly, minimum flow requirements for snowmaking withdrawals and the return of domestic water to the Mad River in the form of highly- treated (tertiary) wastewater have largely eliminated potential significant effects of streamflow modification on fisheries and aquatic resources.
Foreseeable future actions (see Table 3.1-2 include implementation of erosion control measures and minimum flow regulation, which will provide continued protection of fisheries and aquatic resources. In summary, recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to cumulatively affect, in a negative manner, fish, fish habitat or aquatic resources. Consequently, the minor effects from the Proposed Action, when combined with recent past, present and foreseeable other actions, are not expected to negatively affect fisheries or aquatic resources within the analysis area.
3.4 Vegetation Resources and Non-Native Invasive Species
The issues related to vegetation resources center on concerns that the project alternatives would affect the existing vegetation within the Project Area. Specifically, tree and vegetation removal due to trail development will be examined herein. There is also concern that implementation of the Proposed Action would allow the introduction or expansion of non-native invasive species (NNIS) to the extent that native populations would be negatively affected. NNIS are of concern because infestations can reduce the biodiversity of the surrounding area, compete with rare plants, and contribute to a decline in the quality of wildlife habitat by out-competing more desirable native species. Finally, there is concern that tree removal for trail construction would contribute to increased greenhouse gases and global warming.
53 Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to vegetation resources includes all of the direct disturbance area within the Green Peak Expansion Area as identified in Section 1.3 Project Area.
Existing Conditions
On September 1, 2011, Normandeau personnel surveyed the greater Green Peak Expansion Area, including base area parking lots, in order to describe the natural communities on-site (NAI 2011). Natural community types observed within the Project Area during the survey were classified in accordance with Natural Communities of New Hampshire (Sperduto and Kimball 2011). The Project Area is dominated by four different types of upland forest communities: high elevation spruce – fir forest, northern hardwood – spruce – fir forest, sugar maple – beech – yellow birch forest, and semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest. The general locations of these communities within the Project Area are shown in Figure 3.4-1. No rare species or outstanding natural communities as defined by the WMNF Forest Plan were observed during survey efforts, nor are any previously mapped occurrences known.
NNIS
On September 1, 2011, Normandeau personnel surveyed the greater Green Peak Expansion Area, including base area parking lots, for invasive species. Three invasive species were observed in vegetated areas between and along the edges of the parking lots, with one of the species also occurring on existing ski trails. No invasive species were observed in currently forested portions of the Project Area (NAI 2011). A previously documented infestation of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is known to occur within the Project Area, but was not observed on this date.
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) was observed in wet ditches and slopes on the existing ski slopes within the survey area as well as along margins of the parking lot areas within and north of the Project Area. Based on these observations, reed canary grass is probably broadly distributed on ski slopes and other parking lot margins. This species was not observed in any of the forested areas.
A few individual coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) plants were observed along the southern edge of Parking Lot 8 (OP 12). This was the only location observed for this plant. More likely exist in disturbed, wet roadside areas, but it is not as widely distributed or abundant as reed canary grass. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) was also observed
54 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Figure 3.4-1. Green Peak Expansion Project Vegetation Communities.
55 Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A- No Action
Alternative A would not affect existing vegetation; ongoing operational and maintenance changes in ski area operations would occur as they currently do. The vegetation types that are present in the analysis area would not be substantially altered.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Alternative B would directly affect approximately 44 acres of currently forested terrain which would be cleared to provide new ski trails. These effects are in keeping with the Purpose and Need for the Project, and have been anticipated in association with the designation of this Management Area as 7.1 for use in alpine skiing. Effects have been reduced, avoided and minimized as much as possible while still meeting the goals of an improved guest experience and safety. The conversion of 44 acres of common forest types to ski trail and associated ski trail vegetation would have no significant effect on vegetation integrity or biodiversity of the greater Green Peak area.
In addition, a very minor amount of vegetation would be temporarily removed for snowmaking pipeline installation (including the water, air and electrical lines) that would take place along the edge of the proposed ski trails. This effect to vegetation would be negligible to structure and function of the meadow habitats in the analysis area as these areas would be expected to return (except immediately under the pipe) to the existing cover type once construction is complete.
NNIS
Alternative A would have minimal effects to NNIS. Continued recreation use and management of roads, trails, and other infrastructure would continue at historic levels. These activities may spread NNIS into currently unoccupied habitat. The current areas with infestations of invasive plants would receive treatments to control these species under the authority of the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007). Until such time that each of the existing infestations are treated and completely eradicated, they would continue to persist and potentially spread.
Forest Service Manual 2080.44.6 outlines the process to determine the risk of NNIS introduction or spread as part of the NEPA process for proposed actions. Given the implementation of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for controlling the introduction or spread of NNIS, and the known NNIS populations in and around the
56 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Project Area, the overall risk rating assigned for the Green Peak Expansion Project is “low” (USDA-Forest Service 2005e, Project NNIS Risk Assessment 2012).
According to the project NNIS risk analysis, Alternative B would have minimal effects on NNIS species. Soil and vegetation disturbance associated with project activities, as well as recreation use, have the potential to spread NNIS. Alternative B may increase the spread of NNIS, especially because reed canary grass is known to occur immediately adjacent to the direct effect areas. NNIS seeds or other propagules could be inadvertently introduced to newly disturbed ground by construction equipment, wildlife or wind during trail and lift construction and installation of the snowmaking lines. This potential is greatest in the vicinity of existing infestations and construction activities. NNIS spread and introduction could occur in other areas due to long-distance seed dispersal via vehicles, wildlife and wind.
All project activities would implement the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to NNIS. This would reduce but not eliminate the possibility of introducing NNIS. The 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007) and WMNF Monitoring and Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, Monitoring and Evaluation Guide, 2006, p. 30-31) requires de novo monitoring, as well as follow up monitoring at active control locations. Control and monitoring activities reduce the likelihood of invasive plants spread by project activities becoming established and ensure compliance with Forest Plan direction relating to NNIS (Forest Plan, pp 2-11-12). However, these measures likely would not eliminate all potential for spreading invasive plants within the Project Area.
Consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Waterville Valley would use weed free materials for hay, mulch, etc. and seed used for re-vegetation will be of native or non-persistent species.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for vegetation resources is the Project Area, including adjacent trails and forest stands which are managed by Waterville Valley under the SUP, as well as other adjacent or nearby NFS and private lands that due to their proximity with the Project Area may have connected vegetation values. Issues of concern for cumulative effects to vegetative resources differ from direct or indirect effects in that these concerns examine the potential for decrease of biodiversity through the reduction of native plant species. The time frame covers a 20-year (10 years past to 10 years in the future) period. The temporal scope was chosen because it represents the
57 Environmental Assessment
time period in which a forested area cleared of trees would typically re-vegetate to a fully stocked condition with commercial tree species.
Recently developed or proposed projects on the WMNF that provide opportunity for potential cumulative effects with the Green Peak Expansion Project are shown in Table 3.1-1. Many of the effects on the vegetation resources are from timber harvesting on the WMNF and development on private lands within the cumulative effects analysis area. Under Forest Service management, the effects on vegetation from timber harvesting are largely limited to conversion of mature timber age classes and associated late successional plant communities on small scattered tracts. These effects result in a mosaic of forested vegetative communities that gradually succeed more mature forest.
In the foreseeable future, vegetation is and will continue to be managed to accommodate ski operations within the Special Use Permit boundary. This includes removal of hazardous trees along trail edges, trimming of vegetation along trail edges, and the removal of understory vegetation in areas designated for tree skiing. In addition, it is expected that the development activities cited above would continue. Recent development activities on private land in the Town of Waterville Valley relate to primary and secondary homes, businesses, cross country ski trails and associated facilities and supporting roads. These areas have undergone repeated and continuing human disturbance resulting in the long-term loss of native plant communities and overall reduction in the biodiversity of the area. Recent development actions have probably not resulted in significant effects on biodiversity or on timber resources.
There would be continuing minimal loss of native vegetation on private land but not on such a scale that significant cumulative effect on vegetation resources or biodiversity is expected. Alternative B would result in negligible effects to vegetation resources. Consequently, these actions would not add any measurable effect when combined with other past, present or foreseeable future actions.
NNIS
The Analysis Area for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the lands within the Project Area, and the adjacent NFS land and private land in the nearby Town of Waterville Valley. The private property includes a mix of upland hardwoods, softwood, mixed-wood intermixed with ponds, wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams, and residential/commercial development. Any activity that involves ground disturbance or the movement of equipment from locations where NNIS occur to areas
58 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
where they are not yet present has the potential to increase the effect of NNIS on other resources.
The temporal scope for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the past and future ten years (2003 to 2023). This considers temporary ground disturbing activity by project activities (anything over ten years will have re-established a canopy and/or re- vegetated areas of soil disturbance making it unlikely that new infestations would be introduced by wildlife or human activity.) This time frame also allows consideration of the forest-wide invasive plant inventory conducted by the New England Wild Flower Society (2001 - 2004) that covered 220,000 acres across the National Forest and adjacent lands, including portions of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, Chap. 3-154-155).
The cutting of the ski trails from forest and conversion to open grasslands has created the opportunity for NNIS to be introduced and become established. Existing trail maintenance activities including mowing and edge brushing may all increase the chance of NNIS spreading. Similarly, recreational mountain biking in the Snows Mountain area may contribute to NNIS spread along the trails because of continued soil disturbance in small areas.
Given that infestations of the four NNIS identified in the vicinity of the Proposed Project are relatively small, adverse cumulative effects can be avoided through the implementation of Standards and Guidelines, as well as control efforts authorized in the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment. Treatment of these infestations is not being analyzed in the Green Peak Expansion Project.
Alternative A would not create any ground disturbance, and therefore would not add cumulatively to opportunities for NNIS to spread. With the implementation of appropriate controls, it is unlikely that Alternative B would substantially increase the cumulative risk of NNIS spread.
The Proposed Action would not add any measurable cumulative effect to vegetation resources or NNIS when combined with recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Project Area.
3.5 Wildlife Resources
Wildlife resource concerns center around the potential for the Proposed Action to affect wildlife species, including breeding, nesting or foraging behaviors, as well as effects to
59 Environmental Assessment
their habitat. Project-related effects may stem from tree removal, trail development and/or disturbance related to ski area operations or increased levels of non-ski area recreational activities as a result of the trail improvements. Existing conditions in the Green Peak Expansion Area and the potential effects of the Proposed Action as they relate to habitat and wildlife in general are discussed below. Potential effects to federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TEPS), including, Canada lynx or Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) including Bicknell’s thrush and woodland bats are discussed in Section 3.6.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat includes all of the direct disturbance area within the Green Peak Expansion Area as identified in Section 1.3 Project Area. . The temporal scale for analysis of direct and indirect effects is the duration of trail construction.
Existing Conditions
The habitat within the Project Area appears to be suitable for all common wildlife species expected to be present in these forest types and elevations in New Hampshire. The only notable source of existing disturbance to wildlife and their habitat within the Green Peak Expansion Area appears to be the recreational and operational activities associated with the ski area. Cover, in the form of blowdowns, high stem-density regenerating stands, including spruce-fir, and boulder slopes was most abundant at the mid- to higher elevations. Food for herbivores and omnivores, in the form of seeds, fruits, browse, and buds was common if not abundant, and available throughout site. Small mammals (such as mice, squirrels, snowshoe hare) appeared common, providing a suitable forage base for a wide range of predators. There are limited sources of surface water within the Project Area.
Important Wildlife Habitats
Normandeau surveyed for three types of specialized, species-specific habitats in 2011 and 2012. The presence and extent of deer wintering areas (DWAs) for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the area was evaluated by observing forest stand structure, availability of browse species, and the presence of historic browse use. No DWAs were identified in the area. In general DWAs are located in coniferous stands with south trending aspects, at lower elevations (Bennett 2010). On-site coniferous stands have a
60 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
primarily northern exposure and high elevation. Additionally, no signs of historic use were observed (Wildlife Report, Normandeau 2012a).
American beech (Fagus grandifolia) stands or inclusions representing high quality black bear (Ursus americanus) habitat are defined as those stands that exhibit bear scarring made within the past 10 years and include at least 15 to 25 scarred beech trees within a stand (Hamlin, 2011). The density of bear-scarred beech (BSB) in the Project Area was evaluated. The hardwood cover on-site did not qualify as a beech stand or contain a beech inclusion. Although beech trees are present in the understory throughout much of the hardwood area and mature beech dominated the canopy in some locations, no part of the hardwood stand had 80% of its stocking in beech. All the mature beech trees were moderately to heavily diseased, and if bear scarring was present, it was not readily discernible. However, a fresh bear scat containing beech nut hulls was observed near one of the sample plots. Additionally, fresh (2011 vintage) bear scarring was observed on a single, mature, non-diseased beech tree along the western edge of the Project Area (Wildlife Report, Normandeau 2012a). The area does provided some beech resources to bears. However, the low stocking rate of beech in the Project Area likely limits the value of the resource. Additionally, although moderately to heavily diseased beech trees are used by bears as a food source, they typically produce fewer nuts than healthy trees (Hamlin, 2011), which may further limit the value of the beech nut resource for bears in the Project Area.
The presence and density of suitable roost trees for tree-roosting bats (large, tall, deciduous trees and snags with intact bark and moderate levels of decay and hollows) in the Project Area was evaluated within hardwood dominated and mixed forest portions of the Project Area. The Green Peak Expansion Area offers roost habitat for tree-roosting bats (Wildlife Report, Normandeau 2012a).
Ecological Indicators
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum): Peregrine falcons are a WMNF ecological indicator for cliff habitat since these birds nest on high cliffs or ledges often overlooking riparian habitats. Peregrines usually occupy the same cliff each year arriving back at the nest site between March and April. Medium-sized birds are the major food item taken by peregrine falcons. Falcons require an area with abundant prey. Because prey is taken in flight, openings may be beneficial, especially near riparian areas. Breeding peregrine falcons are not expected to occupy the Project Area either now or in the future because there is no cliff nesting habitat. The adjacent existing ski trails and future forest openings
61 Environmental Assessment
created by the ski trails in the Project Area may provide foraging habitat for hunting falcons that are nesting outside of the Project Area.
American Marten (Martes americana) is used as a WMNF indicator to assess effects on landscape-scale fragmentation of habitat connectivity (USFS 2005). Marten are wide- ranging and utilize their entire home range daily which includes all habitat types and age classes though they prefer mature softwood. They are vulnerable to habitat changes. The Green Peak Expansion Area was surveyed for use by medium-sized forest carnivores and their prey species using snow tracking methods, based on a protocol developed by the Forest Service (Squires et al. 2004). Tracks from potential prey species were observed throughout the Project Area, and included mouse spp., red squirrel, snowshoe hare, and ruffed grouse. An extensive marten trail was identified at the higher elevations of the Project Area and ran parallel to the existing ski trails on the eastern boundary of the Project Area, following a hiking trail in spruce/fir cover about 50-100m from the edge of the ski trail. The tracks and trails observed suggested that both red fox and American marten are permanent residents in or around the Project Area.
Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Potentially suitable habitat for four of the five WMNF MIS is present in the Project Area. These species consist of scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea; mature hardwoods), magnolia warbler (Dendroica magnolia; regeneration age softwoods), Blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca; mature softwoods) and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus; all ages of aspen/paper birch). There is little to no potentially suitable habitat for chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica; regeneration age class hardwoods) present in the Project Area. No directed surveys for these species were conducted, but ruffed grouse tracks were noted during winter tracking surveys of the Green Peak Expansion Area.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: No-Action
Alternative A would have no effect on wildlife and their associated habitats. Changes to habitat in forested areas would occur primarily through natural events (e.g., natural forest growth, ice or wind damage, etc.). Snowmaking on areas outside of the proposed expansion area would continue at current levels, therefore runoff and snow retention of slopes would be unchanged. Continuing maintenance activities would keep vegetation on ski slopes in its current condition, thus spring foraging opportunities for bears and
62 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
use of the area by other wildlife throughout the year would be unchanged. There would be no effects to American marten or MIS, deer or bear.
Alternative B: Proposed Action
Alternative B would have effects on wildlife resources, including all four MIS and American marten. The Proposed Action would result in conversion of existing habitat, specifically 44 acres of tree clearing and temporary soil disruption. None of these alterations would be so extensive that extant wildlife populations including all four MIS and American marten, deer and bear would not be able to shift foraging, denning, nesting or mating behaviors to similar localized habitat within and adjacent to the Project Area. All disturbed areas would be regraded and seeded with an approved seed mix. Collectively, these minor changes to habitat conditions would have minimal effect on wildlife, though there would be beneficial effects via increased foraging opportunities in open canopy areas. There would be no direct effect on Peregrine Falcon though new open canopy areas may provide improved foraging habitat. Likewise, extant wildlife populations coexist with ongoing recreational and operational activities, and would be expected to quickly acclimate to the incremental increase in these sources of disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action.
Alternative B might create a deeper and denser snow pack locally as a result of increased snowmaking on the expanded terrain, which in turn may result in extended run-off periods or delayed snow melt on slopes, as described in Section 3.1 Water Resources. Water withdrawal would not cause any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on wildlife. Changes to the snow pack would, on average, result in a somewhat delayed on-set of the growing season on the slopes. These changes could result in minor and short-term effects to the foraging quality of the ski slopes in early spring, but are not anticipated to substancially alter use of wildlife habitat by any species present including American marten and MIS, showshoe hare, deer or bear.
Cumulative Effects
The analysis area for cumulative effects to wildlife resources is the project area plus the adjacent NFS, including the 45,272-acre Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) 11, and nearby private lands that incorporate the home ranges of the wildlife species that occur in the Project Area,. Analysis of cumulative effects for the project area considered actions over the past last ten years, and actions that are reasonably foreseeable in the next ten years. For wildlife-related issues, the 10-year timeframe is based primarily on the phenology of
63 Environmental Assessment
early-successional habitat. This cumulative effects analysis relates to wildlife resources and includes primarily conversion of habitat.
Recently developed or proposed projects on the WMNF that may potentially contribute cumulatively with the Green Peak Expansion Area are shown in Table 3.1-1. For each of these projects, effects to wildlife, including Peregrine Falcon, deer, bear, snowshoe hare, American marten and MIS have been avoided, reduced or minimized to the extent that they are not substantial.
Regional commercial, residential or industrial development on non-NFS lands, although small, exists within the analysis area, but most is limited to the 500-acre portion of the Town of Waterville Valley that is in private ownership. As noted in Section 3.9 Socioeconomics, the Town has reached more than 87% of its planned development (Master Development Plan 2005), so any potential substantial effects to wildlife from development on private lands occurred prior to the analysis timeframe. Further additional development activities on private land would have minimal effect on wildlife.
Implementation of Alternative B would result in minor and short term direct and indirect effects to wildlife, including American marten and MIS. Consequently, the proposed action would not add any measurable cumulative effect when combined with minimal effects from recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative effects analysis area.
3.6 Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species (TEPS) and Regional Foresters Sensitive Species (RFSS)
Concerns for species listed for Federal protection or that are listed on the Eastern Region (R9) Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List center around the potential for the Proposed Action to affect species or individuals, including breeding, nesting or foraging behaviors, as well as effects to their habitat. Project-related effects to TEPS and RFSS may stem from tree removal, trail development and/or disturbance related to ski area operations or increased levels of non-ski area recreational activities as a result of the trail improvements are listed.
A Biological Evaluation (BE) for plants and animals which are Federally-listed as Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TEPS) and/or on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) list was completed March 2013, for the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative. The process used and the sources examined to determine potential occurrence of TEPS or RFSS presence are listed in the BE, which is available in the project record. Conclusions about whether threatened, endangered, and sensitive
64 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
species and their habitat are known or suspected within the Project Area are based on best available science.
Plants
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to TEPS and RFSS plant species and their habitat includes all of the direct disturbance area within the Green Peak Expansion Area as identified in Figure 1.3-2. This area is selected as it represents the area within which potential effects may occur if any species or habitat were present. The timeframe for direct effects is the duration of project related, ground disturbing activity and for indirect effects when soils disturbed by the project are substantially re-vegetated – typically within two growing seasons.
Existing Conditions
The Region 9 RFSS list (December, 2011) includes RFSS plant species that occur on the WMNF. To determine which TEPS plant species could be affected by the Proposed Action, a "Likelihood of Occurrence" (LOC) table was completed, and is available in the BE. In this table, all plant TEPS species tracked by the WMNF are listed along with their status and a brief description of habitat requirements. These requirements were compared to existing habitat within the Project Area and existing data regarding habitat and species distribution. This comparison was then used to determine the likelihood of occurrence for each TEPS and/or RFSS species in the Project Area (Table 3.6-1). Based on the results of the pre-field review and the field reconnaissance, three plant species were determined to have potential to be present within the Project Area as a result of field surveys (Normandeau 2012). No RFSS species were found in the Project Area. A full discussion of the environmental effects with regard to TEPS and RFSS plant species and their habitat can be found in the BE, available in the project file.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternatives A and B would have no effect on TES and RFSS plant species. Based on a review of all available information, it was the Forest Service Botanist’s determination that there is no potential for this project to affect any TEPS plants nor does it have the potential to affect any RFSS plants because none occur.
Any effects would be on species’ potential habitats. Direct effects of the Green Peak Expansion Project would include tree removal in proposed ski trails, glades, and the lift line corridor. Grading within the ski trails would further alter topography and disturb existing soils. No grading is proposed within the glades and lift line corridor. The
65 Environmental Assessment
Table 3.6-1. Likelihood of Occurrence of TEPS and RFSS Plant Species and/or Habitat with the potential to occur in the Green Peak Expansion Area, based on field reviews.
Scientific Status Species Name Likelihood of Occurrence Low. Disturbed wet ski slopes are potential habitat, although RF- Bailey's Sedge Carex baileyi circumneutral conditions were not observed. Project Area surveyed at Sensitive appropriate time of year without discovery of any individuals. Northern RF- Ophioglossum Low. Wet ski slopes are potentially suitable habitat for this species, Adder's Sensitive pusillum but no individuals were observed during surveys. Tongue Low. Rich mesic forests were absent in the Project Area. Semi-rich RF- American Panax mesic sugar maple forest areas were searched but this species was not Sensitive Ginseng quinquefolius observed. expansion would directly reduce the total acres of forest currently within the Project Area by managing open areas for ski trails. The cutting of trees would indirectly increase sunlight reaching the forest floor adjacent to affected areas, which could benefit plants that compete well in open woods and clearings, but be detrimental to plants that compete well in deep shade. Similarly, the annual mowing of the ski trails would directly benefit plants adapted to open, disturbed conditions and adversely affect plants adapted to more stable, forest shade conditions. A decrease in capillary uptake of water by plants would occur due to trail clearing and may accelerate runoff or cause more wetland seepage habitats to form in the trails. Disturbance would be concentrated within the ski trails and minimize overall effects to vegetation, soil, and snow compaction. Creating more open disturbed areas could benefit species such as Bailey’s sedge and northern adder’s tongue. The semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest that is marginally suitable for American ginseng habitat would not be affected by the expansion.
Cumulative Effects
The analysis area for this cumulative effects analysis for TEPS/RFSS plant species is defined as the Project Area plus NFS land in the immediate vicinity of the direct and indirect effects analysis area because plants have a limited ability to transport themselves over great distances through seed dispersal. Unless populations are in close proximity to one another, site effects affecting one population are unlikely to cause cumulative effects to multiple populations outside the analysis area. The Forest Service Manual (2670) provides direction to prevent loss of viability of Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) on the Forest or a trend toward federal listing. The determination of viability concerns for plants that are on the RFSS list was derived from
66 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
data gathered during the Forest Plan revision process; thus, the temporal context for this analysis is from that date forward. Other activities that could result in cumulative effects include logging or habitat maintenance or restoration, road or trail maintenance or construction, and habitat conversion or land development, any time they occur at other known sites for these species. Currently, none of these activities is thought to be occurring at known sites for these species within the cumulative effects analysis area, nor are any planned for these known sites.
Past, present and foreseeable future Waterville Valley activities within the 79-acre area of proposed disturbance (trails, lift line, glade and undisturbed enclosed tree islands) have and would affect plant habitat. The land adjacent to the Project Area is all part of the WMNF. Since there are no known RFSS plants on site, nor any within the cumulative effects analysis area, there would be no cumulative effects to plants from implementation of the Proposed Action.
Conflict Determination: Implementation of the Green Peak expansion would cause “no impact” to the population or individuals of RFSS-listed plants listed in Table 3.6-1. The No Action alternative would not cause any effects to RFSS plants or their habitat.
Rationale: Based on site-specific Project Area plant surveys and best available information from database and scientific literature reviews:
1. There are no documented occurrences of RFSS or TEPS plant species in the Green Peak Expansion Area.
2. Potential habitat may occur for 3 species within the Green Peak Expansion Area. Site work for the expansion could result in improved potential habitat for two species, Baileys’ sedge and northern adder’s tongue. The rich woods with the potential to support American ginseng are outside of the area of effect.
Animals
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to TEPS and RFSS animal species and their habitat includes the Green Peak Expansion Area as identified in Figure 1.3-2.
Existing Conditions
Bicknell’s thrush (Catharus bicknelli), R9SS is a passerine endemic to the Northeast, and breeds in high elevations in disturbed, fir-dominated forests. The elevation of suitable habitat varies with longitude, and the Project Area is just at or below the elevation for Bicknell’s longitudinal location. The elevation of Green Peak is a maximum of 2855’ and
67 Environmental Assessment
the spruce-fir forest on the peak supplies only marginal habitat for Bicknell’s thrush as it is a relatively small, isolated patch at the top of Green Peak. Nevertheless, to determine if Bicknell’s thrush is present in the Project Area, three surveys were conducted within suitable habitat between June 20 and July 8, 2011. No Bicknell’s thrushes were detected during these surveys (Wildlife Report, Normandeau 2012a).
The proposed Project Area is located within mapped suitable habitat for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and contains suitable habitat for four bat species, listed in Table 3.6-2 (Normandeau 2012). Because of their potential to be present, surveys to determine the presence of these species and/or their habitats were conducted within the proposed Project Area, and the survey type and results are also presented in Table 3.6-2.
In agreement with the USDI-FWS (USFS- FS 2000), the WMNF defined 13 Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) within the Forest boundaries, and then mapped the Suitable Forage Habitat, Suitable Denning Habitat, Unsuitable Habitat, and Non-lynx Habitat within each. The definitions of these habitat categories are taken from the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Glossary, pgs. 16-17) and are provided in the Biological Evaluation (Project Record). The GPEA is located within the southeast portion of LAU 11
Based on Forest Service mapping from the Canada Lynx Assessment and Strategy (USDA 2000b), the Project Area is includes mapped lynx habitat, consisting of approximately 38 acres of currently Unsuitable Habitat and approximately 41 acres of Suitable Foraging Habitat. There is no Suitable Denning Habitat. Section 1.5 of this EA provides further discussion of Lynx Analysis Units (LAU).
Several woodland bat species have been recorded across the WMNF during bat surveys conducted in the early 1990s and 2000s (Krusic et al. 1996; Sasse 1995; Chenger 2002, 2004). The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) does not occur on the WMNF. Unlike the eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii), the other bat species that occur on the Forest commonly roost in trees, most often snags and partially dead trees near foraging habitat, or buildings. The Green Peak Expansion Area provides suitable foraging habitat for Northeastern forest bats, and the surveys revealed that potential roost trees for tree- roosting bats are present throughout the analysis area, and are not likely limiting for any of the species of interest.
68 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Table 3.6-2. TEPS and RFSS
Species Status Habitat Requirements Survey Type and Results Canada lynx Favor coniferous or mixed wood forests with Winter tracking survey; Lynx canadensis structure suitable for snowshoe hare. Travel prey base and suitable FT corridors include ridges, saddles, and foraging present, no lynx riparian corridors. tracks observed Eastern small-footed Uses caves, mines and old buildings for Summer roost survey; no myotis winter hibernacula. Uses rock outcrops and rock outcrops, crevices, Myotis leibii RFSS crevices in cliffs exposed to sun, buildings or cliffs observed. and bridges. Most likely forages in openings and along forest roads and wetlands. Little brown myotis Hibernates in abandoned caves and mines. Roost tree survey; Myotis lucifugus RFSS Roosts in barns, attics, outbuildings, and tree suitable roost trees are cavities. Feeds over wetlands and still water. present Northern myotis Hibernates in caves with stable Roost tree survey; Myotis septentrionalis temperatures. Roosts in live, tall, large RFSS suitable roost trees are hardwood trees with decay. Forages in the present upper canopy. Tri-colred bat Hibernates in caves, mines, & other Roost tree survey; Perimyotis subflavus RFSS structures. Roosts in live or dead foliage of suitable roost trees are deciduous trees. present FT= Federally Threatened, SE = State Endangered, RFSS = Regional Foresters Sensitive Species list
Direct and Indirect Effects
Bicknell’s thrush
No Bicknell’s thrush are present, thus there would be no direct or indirect effect to Bicknell’s thrush from implementation of the Proposed Action or the No Action alternatives.
Canada Lynx
There is a very low potential the Proposed Action could cause the direct effect of displacing a lynx (if present) from the project area during trail construction and other proposed expansion activities. If a lynx were displaced, extensive areas of Suitable Habitat are available in LAU 11 and the adjacent LAU 8. Subsequent skier and trail maintenance activities would likely render the ski trail unsuitable for lynx during the winter season due to human presence.
Ski trails and glades in and of themselves in this area would not create unsuitable habitat for lynx, but skier and trail maintenance activities would likely render these trails and the tree islands and glade between the trails unsuitable for lynx during the
69 Environmental Assessment
winter season due to human presence. The amount of Suitable Foraging Habitat that would be unsuitable is 41 acres, or approximately 0.3% of the total amount of Suitable Habitat available in LAU 11. Therefore indirect effects to lynx habitat include a minor reduction in the amount of foraging habitat in the LAU.
Due to the conversion of the minor amount of suitable habitat, the Proposed Action would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines for Canada lynx, specifically Standard 3a as discussed in Section 1.5 Introduction and a site-specific Forest Plan amendment is required. This amendment would read as follows (italics indicate proposed amendment text):
S-3 Unless a broad-scale assessment of landscape patterns that compares historical and current ecological processes and vegetation patterns is developed, disturbance must be limited in the following manner: a. If more than 30 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur because of vegetation management activities by federal agencies unless the activity is proposed specifically to improve future snowshoe hare habitat. The Green Peak Expansion Project at the Waterville Valley Ski Resort is an allowed exception to this standard. If the Proposed Action were implemented, the relatively minor amount of mapped suitable habitat that would be converted into open ski trail, glade and enclosed tree islands (approximately 41 acres, or 0.3% of the mapped suitable habitat) would not prevent lynx movement in and around the Green Peak Expansion Area. Because of existing levels of year-round human activity, the proposed expansion area is unlikely to provide core home range habitat for lynx now or in the future.
Woodland Bat Species
Direct effects to woodland bats are possible as a result of the Proposed Action if roost trees containing non-flying juveniles are felled, but any bat capable of flight would be expected to exit the tree as soon as disturbance (chain sawing) began. If project-related tree clearing occurs within the June 1 – July 15 period, there is a small potential to adversely affect some young individuals. The Proposed Action would also have direct positive effects on bats due to the ski trail clearing. The value of some remaining potential roost trees may be improved for some species, as snags will receive greater solar exposure (warmth) due to the clearing created by the ski trail edges. Warm nursery areas accelerate juvenile development which in turn enhances bat survival. The new ski trails would also create new linear flyways that could be used for travel and foraging. Indirect effects to roosting habitat are expected to be a minor reduction in roost habitat
70 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
as a result of the proposed project. There would be no direct or indirect effects on winter habitat, as there are no documented caves within the Green Peak Expansion Area.
Cumulative Effects
The analysis areas for cumulative effects to TEPS and RFSS animal species is the analysis area for direct and indirect effects plus the adjacent NFS and nearby private lands that incorporate the home range of the TEPS and RFSS species that occur in the Project Area; for Canada lynx the cumulative effects analysis area included the 45,000-acre Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) 11. Analysis of cumulative effects of the proposed action considers actions over the past last ten years, and actions that are reasonably foreseeable in the next ten years. For wildlife, the 10-year timeframe is based primarily on the phenology of early-successional habitat. The cumulative effects analysis considers wildlife resources and included primarily conversion or fragmentation of habitat.
Commercial, residential or industrial development on non-NFS lands, although small, exists within the analysis area, but most is limited to the 500-acre portion of the Town of Waterville Valley that is in private ownership. As noted in Section 3.9 Socioeconomics, the Town has reached more than 87% of its planned development (Master Development Plan 2005), so any potential effects to TEPS and RFSS animal species from development on private lands occurred prior to the analysis timeframe. Further additional development activities on private land would have minimal effect on TEPS and RFSS.
Recently developed or proposed projects on the WMNF that are within, adjacent, or nearby to the proposed action and that may potentially contribute cumulative effects with the Green Peak Expansion shown in Table 3.1-1. For each of these projects, impacts to TEPS/RFSS animal effects have been avoided, reduced or minimized to the extent that they are not substantial. Although some of these projects may affect species individuals, none of them, individually or in combination, would cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability.
Canada Lynx
As only a very small portion of the currently Suitable Habitat in LAU 11 would be seasonally unavailable due to the Proposed Action, it would not meaningfully contribute to the cumulative effects, if any, of all other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions in LAU 11 over the next ten years and would not alter the resources to irreversible or irretrievable commitments that might foreclose options for the future recovery of Canada lynx in New Hampshire.
71 Environmental Assessment
Woodland Bat Species
The Proposed Action would not add any cumulative effects to the RFSS-listed woodland bats on the WMNF or their habitat. While minor reductions in the amount of roost trees may occur, roost trees are not limiting in the Project Area. No bat hibernacula have been found on the WMNF. All proposed activities would occur outside of known caves that are off-Forest, with no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on hibernacula (USFS 2010, 2012). Consequently, the proposed action would not add any measurable cumulative effect to woodland bats when combined with recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Project Area.
Conflict Determinations
Canada Lynx:
Conflict Determination: Implementation of the No Action alternative would cause a “no effect” to Canada lynx. Implementation of the Proposed Action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” individual Canada lynx.
Rationale: This determination was based on site-specific surveys and field reviews, Forest-wide wildlife surveys, prior Forest Service BEs in the same watershed, and best available information from internal and external databases, scientific literature reviews, and communications with internal and external professional biologists.
1. The revised designation of Critical Habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population of the Canada lynx (Federal Register Notice, February 24, 2009) does not include any part of New Hampshire.
2. In 2011, four lynx kittens were documented in two locations in northern Coos County in Pittsburg, NH (approximately 80 miles north of the Project Area). In winter of 2006, tracks and scat were found on private land north of US Route 2 in the Town of Jefferson (approx. 30 miles northeast of the Project Area). DNA tests confirmed the scat was from one female lynx. In April 2013, tracks were observed along Kinsman Ridge. These observations suggest that a breeding population of lynx may be reoccupying a portion of their former range in NH (which includes the WMNF) after having been absent during the later portion of the 1900s.
3. No lynx or their sign was detected during two winter track surveys conducted on the Project Area in 2012. No lynx or their sign was detected during 1999 and 2004 Forest-wide National Lynx Detection hair snare surveys, or during 1993-97 and 2003-2012 Forest-wide winter track surveys. However lynx competitors for
72 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
snowshoe hare prey base (coyote, fox, and fisher) have been observed within the proposed Green Peak expansion area as well as throughout the WMNF.
4. Lynx have a large home range and the Proposed Action would alter only a small fraction (approximately 0.3%) of the Suitable Habitat mapped in LAU 11. Because of existing levels of year-round human activity, the Expansion Area is unlikely to provide core home range habitat for lynx now or in the future. The relatively minor amount of mapped Suitable Foraging Habitat (approximately 41 acres) that would be converted into open ski trail would not prevent lynx movement in and around the Green Peak Expansion Area.
5. The project meets the WMNF Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines for protecting lynx habitat with one exception to Standard 3a. A proposed Forest Plan amendment is presented above.
Woodland Bat Species
Conflict Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action “may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” of: Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) Northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus)
Under the No Action Alternative there would be lost opportunities to open the forest canopy and create favorable roosting and foraging habitat along ski trails for woodland bats due to no vegetation removal in the Project Area at this time.
Rationale: Determinations were based on best available local and relevant science and new information (USFS 2010, 2010b, 2011, 2012) and on site-specific field surveys (Normandeau 2012), WMNF mist-net surveys (Chenger 2002, 2004; Yamasaki 2004), and recent cave surveys in NH (NHFG 2010, Veilleux and Reynolds 2010, Veilleux 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010), and woodland bat surveys off the WMNF in NY & VT (Kiser et al. 2001, 2002).
1. Forest-wide mist net surveys of woodland bats (including similar habitat as found in the Project Area(Chenger 2002, 2004 and USDA FS 2009, 2010, 2011) detected eastern small-footed, little brown, northern long-eared, and tri-colored bat
2. The Proposed Action would remove trees and vegetation for trail construction and allow sunlight into adjacent areas, potentially removing some roost trees and
73 Environmental Assessment
simultaneously improving solar conditions for other roost trees, as well as creating open foraging habitat along ski trails for woodland bats.
3. If tree-clearing for the Proposed Action occurs during the June 1 –July 15 period, some trees may potentially contain non-flying juveniles, creating a small possibility for direct effects to a limited number of individuals. However, if the tree clearing takes place outside of this period, there would be no direct effects as a result of the Proposed Action.
4. There are no documented overwinter hibernacula (caves, mines, or tunnels) and no old buildings exposed to sun as roost sites (USFS 2005, Appendix G, pages 224-227) within the Project Area.
3.7 Visuals
The issues central to visual resources focus on concerns that the chairlift towers and trail clearing would affect the viewshed from nearby mountain vistas and that the overall visual effect of the Proposed Action would not fit the currently appealing visual character of Waterville Valley.
Forest Service Management Direction
The quality of the visual environment or scenery is an important component in the management of NFS lands. Basic direction for scenery management is outlined in FSM 2380. Forest Service policy calls for the National Forest to ensure that scenery is treated equally with other resources and that scenery management principles are applied routinely in all National Forest activities (FSM 2380.3). The Forest Service manages scenic quality for the lands it manages by assigning Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) developed under the process described in Agriculture Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. The Scenery Management System (SMS) provides guidelines by which the quality of the visual resource may be evaluated and then managed within the context of other resource management activities.
The resulting SIOs developed under the Scenery Management System establish a desired level of scenic quality and define the degree of acceptable alteration of the landscape resulting from human activity. The WMNF has completed the process for establishing SIOs and established specific standards and guidelines for scenery management in the Forest Plan. The WMNF overall goal for scenery management states: “The White Mountain National Forest will conduct all management activities to be consistent with assigned Scenic Integrity Objectives, realizing the importance to
74 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
local communities and Forest users of a natural-appearing landscape, distinct from the human-made environments dominant in the East” (Forest Plan, Page 1-16). The levels of Scenic Integrity are defined in the SMS Handbook and in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan Glossary, Page 28). SIOs for the WMNF are assigned based on Scenic Class and Management Area (MA) combinations. For some MAs a single SIO is assigned based on MA desired condition factors or overriding management direction established through legislative or other land management directives. For MA 7.1 Alpine Ski Areas, which includes the Green Peak Expansion Project, the assigned SIO is Low (Forest Plan, p. 27). A Low SIO refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetation type changes or architectural styles from outside the landscape being viewed. For the adjacent landscape surrounding Waterville Valley’s MA 7.1, the SIO is identified as High. For those surrounding areas, the natural appearing environment should remain dominate while development should remain subordinate in the view.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to visual resources is shown in Figure 3.7-1. The Green Peak Expansion Project lies within a well-defined location. On its longer axis the Project Area is bounded by the ridge running in a northeasterly direction from Green Peak on one side and by the existing ski area development on the other. However, the geographic scope for the scenic resources analysis encompasses a much larger area of influence to include all areas from which the proposed project is potentially visible. This includes viewpoints in the Waterville Valley area, including the Village, valley access roads, and a system of hiking trails on adjacent NFS lands. The slopes associated with Mt. Tecumseh and the adjacent peaks serve as a backdrop to views observed from Waterville Valley and National Forest trails and vista locations surrounding the valley.
Existing Conditions
Existing Visual Condition
The Project lies on the northwest facing slope of the ridge running to the northeast of Green Peak and is densely forested with little noticeable development occurring. Spruce and fir dominate the higher elevations (above 2200 feet) that include Green Peak and the upper ridge. Spruce and fir become interspersed with deciduous northern hardwoods as
75 Environmental Assessment
Figure 3.7-1. Green Peak Expansion Project Viewpoint Location Map.
76 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
elevation decreases. Northern hardwoods dominate at the lower elevations. While within the existing alpine ski area SUP for Waterville valley, the general character of the undeveloped Project Area is that of a natural appearing forested mountain slope with vegetation patterns similar to the other forested lands which surround the more highly developed portions of the SUP.
Visually, the adjacent ski area development reflects a linear pattern of trails and chairlift lines lying on the eastern slope of Mt. Tecumseh and that, in their current layout or configuration, have been a part of the landscape since the mid-1960s. Currently there are 7 chairlifts and 5 surface lifts of varied length located at the ski area. Additional developments visually evident include the base lodge and other service buildings, parking lot area, entrance road, utility lines or right of ways, terminals and towers associated with the chairlifts, and communication tower located at the top of the mountain. The ski area sits by itself within the surrounding forested landscape away from the Village center as well as the residential and condominium development and other recreation facilities found in the valley.
Visibility and Concern Levels
Map, field review, and other research identified several locations from which portions of the existing Waterville Valley Ski Resort and the proposed Green Peak Expansion Project would be visible, (Figure 3.7-1). For all locations, concern level and distance zones are discussed. Concern levels are a measure of the degree of public importance placed on landscapes viewed from travel ways and use areas. They are identified under the Scenic Management System as level 1 (high), 2 (moderate) and 3 (low). Distance zones are defined as foreground (observer to ½ mile away), middleground (½ mile to 4 miles from the observer) and background (4 miles to infinity from the viewer). Locations having views toward the Project Area and identified for assessment are:
Viewpoint 1 – Waterville Valley Ski Area (On-Site View)
The primary viewpoint identified for on-site assessment is located in front of the ski area base lodge. This immediate foreground view provides a dominant view of the lower portion of the proposed Green Peak Expansion Area as well as the lower slopes of the existing ski area development. The existing view is dominated by the BBTS Competition building (which is to be removed) and other service buildings, lower chairlift terminals, chairlifts, and ski trails. The overall visibility of the Project Area is limited in other locations of the existing ski area development. Views from the entrance road are blocked by existing vegetation and the base lodge and other buildings located at the base. Views
77 Environmental Assessment
from the parking lot are also blocked due to the orientation of the parking bays and island vegetation. Some limited visibility may occur during the winter months when the vegetation is off the trees.
Use at this site is primarily limited to the winter season. It is assumed that views of the existing trail network and other ski area facilities from this viewpoint at the base are consistent with the overall visual character of the site and expectation level of the visitors using the site.
Viewpoint 2A and 2B – Village Area
Several locations can be found around the Village area having views toward Green Peak and the associated ridge running to the northeast. Two locations were selected within the Village area to represent the multiple view locations. Viewpoint 2A (Figure 3.7-2) is representative of views in the core area of the Village and that occur from points along the various roads, some of the residential and condominium areas, commercial center, and golf course. Viewpoint 2B (Figure 3.7-3) represents the northern part of the Village that is closest to the Green Peak ridge and provides some indication of what effects may occur from the trails and residential area found on the lower slopes of Snows Mountain.
From points throughout the Village, Mt. Tecumseh is a dominant focal point observed in the middleground distance zone. Green Peak and the southwest face of the ridge are also dominant as near middleground land features. The upper slopes of the existing ski area development can be viewed but the lower ski area runs are blocked from view by the Green Peak ridge. Viewpoint Concern Levels within the Village are assessed with respect to the tourism and the four-season recreation use associated with the area.
Other than the higher elevation ski runs that are visible, the remaining mountain slopes are heavily vegetated with no other development visible. Views from within the Village frequently include foreground building structures or other development as illustrated in Viewpoints 2A and 2B.
Viewpoint 3 – The Scaur
The Scaur is a popular ledge overlook site with views to the southwest toward Mount Tecumseh and the existing ski area/expansion slope around to the northeast toward several major mountain peaks found in the White Mountains (Figure 3.7-4). These include the peaks of Mt. Tripyramid. It is at an elevation of approximately 2200 feet and provides an extensive view of a natural appearing forested landscape. Other than the ski area development that is dominant in the view, little if any other development is readily
78 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Figure 3.7-2. Viewpoint 2A – Village Area.
79 Environmental Assessment
Figure 3.7-3. Viewpoint 2B – Village Area.
80 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Figure 3.7-4. Viewpoint 3 – The Scaur.
81 Environmental Assessment
noticeable. Visible elements of the existing ski area include clearings for ski trails and chairlifts and evidence of building structures at the base. The chairlift towers are not highly visible. Some textural change in the vegetation associated with past timber sale activity can be observed in the view.
The Scaur is inventoried as a Concern Level 2 feature and the viewing distance to the mid-point of the Green Peak ridge is approximately 2.3 miles.
Viewpoint 4 – Goodrich Rock
Goodrich Rock is notable as a geologic feature and is one of the largest glacial erratics in New Hampshire. Access to the top of the rock can be ascended by a steep ladder. From the top of the rock, views over the tree tops look south / southwest toward the existing ski area development and Project slope (Figure 3.7-5). The view toward the Project slope is similar to that from the Scaur and is at approximately the same elevation. Because it faces more to the south it provides a slightly better view of the face of the Project slope.
Goodrich Rock is inventoried as a Concern Level 2 feature and the viewing distance to the mid-point of the Green Peak ridge is approximately 2.2 miles.
Viewpoint 5 – Mt. Osceola
Mt. Osceola is one of the 4000’ peaks (Elevation 4340’) located in the WMNF and is a popular hiking destination. It can be readily accessed from the valley floor and is reached by the Mt. Osceola Trail that runs from the Tripoli Road to the Greeley Pond Trail. The peak can be reached from either end of the trail.
While various views in different directions exist along the trail, Mt. Osceola peak provides the most expansive views, including to the south toward the Village area, the existing ski area, and the Project slope (Figure 3.7-6). While the vista from Mt. Osceola is extensive and encompasses natural appearing views of the surrounding landscape, it also includes more visible development compared to the other middle and background viewpoints identified. Openings related to many of the Waterville Valley Ski Resort trails and chairlifts as well as the parking area can be observed. There is also evidence of base building structures. In addition, openings and development within the Village area can be observed along with evidence of the valley access roads.
Mt. Osceola is inventoried as a Concern Level 1 feature and the viewing distance to the mid-point of the Green Peak ridge is approximately 3.0 miles.
82 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Figure 3.7-5. Viewpoint 4 – Goodrich Rock.
83 Environmental Assessment
Figure 3.7-6. Viewpoint 5 - Mt. Osceola.
84 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Viewpoint 6 – Mt. Tripyramid
Mt. Tripyramid, also a 4,000’ peak and located in the Sandwich Range Wilderness Area, has extensive views. Access is a more difficult due to the length of trails and grades to ascend the mountain. Mt. Tripyramid incorporates three peaks with Middle Tripyramid (Elevation 4140’) providing extensive views to the northwest around to the southeast (Figure 3.7-7). The existing Waterville Valley Ski Resort is readily visible to the west and is the only notable development visible in an otherwise natural appearing landscape. Visible elements of the existing ski area are primarily clearings for ski trails and chairlifts. Other structures or ski area facilities are not readily discernable at this distance. Most of the area proposed for expansion is located on the northwest slope of the Green Peak ridge which faces away from the viewer at this view location.
Mt. Tripyramid is inventoried as a Concern Level 1 feature and the viewing distance to the mid-point of the Green Peak ridge is approximately 4.5 miles, a background view.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: No-Action
Alternative A would be consistent with the assigned the Scenic Integrity Objective of Low. No new ski trails, chairlifts, building removal and relocation, or other Project components would be constructed under the No Action alternative. Therefore, this alternative would not have any adverse effects on scenic quality, since the existing conditions in the Project Area would remain unchanged.
Alternative B: Proposed Action
Alternative B would have minimal direct and indirect effects on visual resources. Effects would be consistent with the assigned Scenic Integrity Objective of Low. In completing the assessment of the effects of the proposed Green Peak Expansion Project, simple simulations were completed for each viewpoint using Google Earth Pro. The illustrations were created to approximate the view represented in the actual on-site viewpoint photographs (Figures 3.7-2 through 3.7-7). It was noted in comparing the created Google Earth Pro simulations against the actual on-site view that the simulations tended to show slightly more existing development than the actual existing condition represented in the photographs. This may also be true relative to how much of the Project expansion can actually be viewed. However, interpretations for effects purposes are based on what the simulations illustrate as visible in the view. Because our baseline imagery was from summer or fall periods, the proposed expansion trail and chairlift
85 Environmental Assessment
Figure 3.7-7. Viewpoint 6 – Mt. Tripyramid.
86 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Although the NEPA process and development of this EA proceeds prior to final development of engineering plans providing details of chairlift tower heights, it is noted here that given the topography at Green Peak, typical lift towers do not exceed 40 feet in height. The existing chairlift towers average approximately 35 feet in height (pers. comm. 2012), and the proposed chairlift is expected to be of similar height. Thus, the simulations provided were designed to show clearing for all activities, and are wide enough to encompass effects from tower heights. Visibility of the proposed chairlift is anticipated to have visual effects similar to those described under affected environment for each individual viewpoint.
Besides achieving the SIO of Low, the primary issue or concern for Scenic Resources centered on whether the expansion would remain in the same context as the present site and whether the effects of the expansion would fit the existing visual character of Waterville Valley and adjacent landscapes as viewed from surrounding view locations. Two indicators are used to address the issues and concerns. The first is the change to the existing character of the viewed area that incorporates the proposed expansion as viewed from the identified viewpoints. The second indicator is the degree to which the proposed expansion would meet the SIO of Low.
Viewpoint 1 – Waterville Valley Ski Area (On-Site view)
This immediate foreground on-site viewpoint would show the greatest change in character of all the viewpoints identified. New clearings for ski trails and chairlifts as well as the new chairlift itself would be highly visible and change the current vegetated character of the slope. However, the new clearings once completed and planted to grass would duplicate the existing ski trail/chairlift clearings and chairlifts that are also highly visible and dominant in the view and that make up the current character of the landscape. There may be a noticeable textural change in the vegetation associated with the glade area. The BBTS Competition building removal and relocation would remain in character with the presence of other buildings visible in the current view. The changed character of the slope would remain consistent with the overall visual character of the site and expectation level of the visitors using the site and thus meet the SIO of Low.
Key factors to help in achievement of the SIO in this foreground view center on:
design elements of the reconstructed BBTS Competition building and how it meets the site character;
colors used in chairlift towers and other facilities;
and, edge effects related to clearings (both earth disturbance and tree line).
87 Environmental Assessment
Viewpoint 2A and 2B – Village Area
Most views within the Village area provide near middleground views toward Green Peak and the existing ski area. While the representative views show highly developed areas in the immediate foreground, the Green Peak ridge and undeveloped portions of Mt Tecumseh provide a forested backdrop setting. This character should remain with the implementation of the Green Peak Expansion Project as the development would occur on the slope facing away from the Village views. However, one of the expansion trails would occur along the ridge line and some visible textural change in the vegetation could occur along the ridge when viewed (Figures 3.7-2 and 3.7-3). This would depend on the clearing line and whether it breaks the ridge on the southeast facing slope.
For views represented by Viewpoint 2A, the simulation indicates little, if any, change will occur on the ridge. It becomes more critical for views represented by Viewpoint 2B where the simulation indicates development on the ridge is more likely to be visible, either as a noticeable textural change along the ridgeline vegetation or as an opening. This will be most noticeable at the higher elevation near Green Peak if a sparsely vegetated line is highlighted against the sky. It is less critical for Viewpoint 2A and the lower part of the ridge as observed from Viewpoint 2B as the slopes of Mt Tecumseh provide a backdrop that would help mitigate the effects of any observable clearing or textural change.
Any change to the character of the view from the Village area should be minimal and relate to the already observable ski area clearings, thus achieving the SIO of Low.
Viewpoint 3 – The Scaur
Although the dominant character of the extensive view from The Scaur is one of a natural appearing forested landscape, Waterville Valley has been dominant in the view and a part of the landscape for the last 45 years. The simulations completed for this view (Figure 3.7-4) show that the Green Peak Expansion Project trail and chairlift clearings would be visible in the view and add to the extent of the overall ski area development. The additional clearings are directly adjacent to the existing ski area and would appear as a natural part of the existing development. Once completed and grass has grown on the disturbed area, they would not stand out or be in contrast to what has been observed over time, thus appearing as part of the character that has historically been observed from this view location. The additional clearings do not appear extensive and along the
88 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
left edge may visually help balance the overall configuration of clearings that occur in this V-shaped bowl. The SIO of Low would be achieved in this view.
While chairlifts themselves are not readily visible, it is important to maintain natural occurring landscape colors or contrast to reduce likelihood of visibility. Direction for color selection for various structures associated with ski areas on National Forests is detailed in the National Forest Landscape Management, Ski Areas, Volume2, Chapter 7 (USDA 1984; also known as the “USFS Ski Area Guide”). Forest Service Scenery Management direction would be followed by all actions associated with the Proposed Action.
Viewpoint 4 – Goodrich Rock
The evaluation and assessment for Goodrich Rock is the same as that outlined for Viewpoint 3 – The Scaur. Due to its aspect, the view is more to the south and provides a slightly better view of the face of the Project slope; thus most of the clearing related to the development will be observed (Figure 3.7-5). Both this location and The Scaur have been inventoried as having a moderate concern level. Although views are important to both locations, the interest for Goodrich Rock may be more oriented toward the geological feature of the rock itself and other erratics that occur in the immediate area.
Viewpoint 5 – Mt. Osceola
Of all the views identified for assessment, the view from Mt. Osceola provides the most dominant view of the Project Area, looking almost broadside at the northwest facing slope where the expansion is proposed. Due to its superior elevation there is a greater amount of development that can be observed in the otherwise natural appearing forest landscape. Similar to Viewpoint 3 – The Scaur, the existing ski area has been a part of the observed landscape for a number of years.
The simulations completed for this view (Figure 3.7-6) show that most all of the Green Peak Expansion Project trail and chairlift clearings would be visible in the view and add to the extent of the overall ski area development. Similar to the view from The Scaur, the additional clearings are directly adjacent to the existing ski area and would appear as a natural part of the existing development. The additional trail clearings along the upper edge in this view may visually help balance the overall configuration of clearings occurring within the ski area and reduce effects of the current straightedge appearance along the edge of the existing development. The SIO of Low would be achieved in this view.
89 Environmental Assessment
While chairlifts themselves are not readily visible, it is important to maintain naturally- occurring landscape colors to reduce likelihood of visibility. The USFS Ski Area Guide noted above provides direction for scenery management at ski areas located on National Forests.
Viewpoint 6 – Mt. Tripyramid
Other than the existing trail and chairlift clearings related to the existing Waterville Valley Ski Resort area development, the extensive view from Mt. Tripyramid is one of a forested natural appearing landscape. The simulation created for the Green Peak Expansion Project (Figure 3.7-7) indicates that some trail clearing would be observed in this background view. The major portion of the Expansion Area on the northwest facing slope of the Green Peak ridge is oriented such that it is not in the observers view. At the view distance and angle involved, the clearing that would be observed on the ridge would blend well with the existing clearings and would not be highly noticeable in the view. The Green Peak Expansion Project would meet the SIO of Low from this viewpoint.
Cumulative Effects
The analysis timeframe for cumulative effects to visual resources is 30 years before and 20 years forward for time, and the analysis area is the same as that for direct and indirect visual effects as described previously.
Other projects in the area that could contribute to cumulative effects to the Scenic Resource include management activities such as timber sales or other vegetation management activity, recreation construction projects, residential and commercial development, utility right-of-way clearings, or future additions to the ski area. At this time there are no known activities proposed in the immediate area or in proximity of the Green Peak expansion project of a scale that would have a substantial effect on Scenic Resources, especially within the lands of the WMNF. Projects currently occurring or being planned are related to trail relocation and maintenance/replacement of existing improvements in the valley areas. Residential and commercial projects undertaken in the Town of Waterville have historically been accomplished with a high degree of consideration for visual concerns. While no new timber sale activity is planned by the Forest Service, this and all other management on the WMNF must meet standards and guidelines that achieve established Scenic Resource Management Objectives. No immediate additional major projects are proposed for Waterville Valley.
90 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Consequently, these actions would not add any measurable cumulative effect when combined with recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Project Area.
3.8 Winter Recreation Resources
The issues central to winter recreation resources come directly from the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action, as described fully in Section 1.5 Introduction; briefly, the Project is proposed in order to increase novice and intermediate terrain, offer a more gradual continuum of terrain challenges at the resort, provide an improved visitor experience and improve safety for all skiers.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
The analysis area for winter recreation resources focuses on the public and private lands in the immediate Waterville Valley area where winter recreation occurs, namely the 3,010 acres contained in the resort’s SUP, the Town of Waterville Valley and any adjacent lands that may also support winter recreation.
Existing Conditions
The Forest Service’s purpose in issuing a ski area SUP is to increase the diversity and quality of recreational opportunities provided on NFS lands. The Forest Plan contains goals and objectives for providing a diverse range of high-quality, sustainable winter recreational opportunities that complement those provided on non-NFS lands. Plan direction for alpine ski areas, including the Project Area, is described by Management Area (MA) 7.1 which emphasizes highly developed recreation. The purpose of MA 7.1 is to provide opportunities for recreation requiring highly developed structures and facilities, while maintaining a visually appealing landscape and managing for other resource uses in a compatible way. The SUP authorizes use of 3,010 acres of NFS lands for alpine skiing areas at Mt. Tecumseh (816 acres) and Snow’s Mountain (40 acres) and Nordic and mountain bike terrain surrounding the Town of Waterville Valley (2,154 acres). Waterville Valley has operated under an SUP since the 1960s; the current SUP was issued in 2010 and expires on October 8, 2050. All of the areas within the Mt. Tecumseh and Snow’s Mountain portion of Waterville Valley’s SUP are designated as MA 7.1.
Waterville Valley is popular for the winter recreation opportunities it offers. Alpine skiing/snowboarding and other winter-season resort activities are provided to the public. There are approximately 220 skiable acres at the resort which encompass the
91 Environmental Assessment
following features: 52 maintained trails, five gladed areas, and terrain features that include six Mogul fields, four different terrain parks and a learner’s area (WVSR 2012). With the exception of the deficiencies to be addressed by the Proposed Project, the trail and terrain network accommodates a range of ability levels from beginner to expert for both skiers and riders.
Waterville Valley’s existing terrain and guest ability distribution are shown in Table 3.8- 1. Deficits in beginner, novice and low intermediate terrain are apparent, while surpluses are noted in advanced intermediate and expert. This is consistent with Waterville Valley’s reputation as an advanced skier’s mountain, but it also underscores that slightly more than 50% of Waterville Valley’s user groups are being under-served. Given that Waterville Valley focuses on providing a quality recreational experience for families, and that guests are more than 50% beginner, novice or low intermediate in skill level, efforts need to be made to increase the amount of terrain for this user group. Table 3.8-1. Existing Terrain Distribution by Ability Level
Terrain Guest Terrain Skier/Rider Terrain Area Distribution Distribution Deficit/Surplus Ability Level (acres) (%) (%) (%) Beginner 0.4 0.2 1 -0.8 Novice 28.3 14.2 24 -9.8 Low Intermediate 40.7 20.4 26 -5.6 Intermediate 77.5 38.9 36 +2.9 Adv. Intermediate 32.3 16.2 10 +6.2 Expert 20.3 10.2 3 +6.9 Total 199.4 100 100 NA Source: Waterville Valley Resort Master development Plan Draft January 2012
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A: No-Action
Alternative A would have no effect on winter recreation resources. With no increase in lower ability level terrain, it is expected that utilization at Waterville Valley would continue at levels significantly below the average of other Northeast ski areas of similar type and character.
The demand for skiing and snowboarding, both in the Northeast regional and nationally, has shown varying but nominal growth over the past decade (Figure 3.8-1). New England ski areas that have the capacity to meet demand, despite uncooperative weather (i.e. lack of natural snowfall, thaws) will likely gain a greater market share over the long run. In comparison, Waterville Valley has seen a significant decline in skier
92 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
visitation. Ski areas not capable of meeting current demands for improved services such as faster lift speeds and more family-friendly design could potentially experience a decline in the market share.
If Waterville Valley’s declining and inconsistent visitation rates continued into the future, their financial ability to implement long-term capital investment (i.e. upgrade of lifts) would be diminished. This absence of making necessary improvements to remain competitive in the skiing market could result in a diminished quality skiing experience at Waterville Valley in the long-term.
Skier Visitation 1997-98 to 2011-12
Northeast National Waterville Valley
70 0.3
60 0.25 50 0.2 40 0.15 30 0.1
20 Visitation Skier
Skier Visitation Skier 10 0.05 Waterville Waterville Valley (millions)
0 0 National andNationalNortheast (millions)
Ski Season Source: NSAA National End of Season Survey 2011-12 Final report, http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/historical-visits.pdf
Figure 3.8-1 Recent National, Regional and Waterville Valley Skier Visitation Trends
Alternative B: Proposed Action
Alternative B would have positive direct and indirect effects on winter recreation resources. The Proposed Action is designed to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives and meet the project purpose and need as provided in Section 1.5 Introduction. Waterville Valley proposes to create a network of eight new trails that would connect to and generally parallel the existing trail network along Stillness and Upper Valley Run, eventually merging and then emerging in the Lower Valley Run base area. The proposed terrain would be serviced by a new detachable quad chairlift.
93 Environmental Assessment
The resulting increase in ski terrain would help address the existing deficit in novice and lower intermediate terrain as well as provide some additional advanced terrain (Table 3.8-2). Increased terrain for all skiing abilities, but especially novice and low intermediate terrain, would enhance the quality and safety of the skiing experience and visitation levels would be expected to increase annually. It is expected that these skiers would come, in part, from other areas which have gradually captured some of Waterville Valley’s historical market and, in part, from growth in the industry. Table 3.8-2. Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Terrain Distribution by Ability Level
Total Existing and Skier/Rider Existing Terrain Proposed Change Proposed Terrain Ability Level (acres) (acres) (acres) % Change Beginner 0.4 0 0.4 0 Novice 28.3 4.8 33.1 17 Low Intermediate 40.7 9.5 50.2 23
Intermediate 77.5 19.3 96.8 25 Adv. Intermediate 32.3 4.1 36.4 13
Expert 20.3 5.9 26.2 29 Total 199.41 43.71 243.1 Source: Waterville Valley Resort Master Development Plan Draft January 2012 1Rounding causes a slight difference in total values. Alternative B would help meet the Forest Plan goal to provide a diverse range of high quality, sustainable recreational opportunities that complement those provided off NFS lands, since a higher quality ski experience would be provided on a more consistent basis.
Visiting skiers typically adopt the 6-8-10 principle, whereby they spend approximately 6 hours skiing, 8 hours sleeping, and up to 10 hours pursuing alternative recreation. Implementation of Alternative B would result in increased average annual alpine skiing visitation to Waterville Valley. Accordingly, while no significant change in peak demand levels would be expected, the average demand for other winter recreation activities such as nordic skiing, snowshoeing, ice-skating, sleigh rides, dining and shopping would likely increase within the Waterville Valley area. It is recognized that alpine skiers may also bring non-alpine skiing family members and/or friends to Waterville Valley for a winter vacation. Thus, the implementation of the Proposed Action would positively affect the region surrounding the resort, including the Town of Waterville Valley, Campton, and the businesses located along State Route 49.
94 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Cumulative Effects
The analysis area for cumulative effects is the same as that for direct and indirect effects analysis. The timeframe for this analysis is 20 years prior and 40 years after implementation of the Proposed Action. The forward looking portion of the timeframe is consistent with the 40-year term of Waterville Valley’s SUP.
Waterville Valley Ski Resort opened in 1966-67 as a destination ski resort. Though a few lifts have been replaced in subsequent decades, the layout of the mountain today is generally quite similar to that of the late 1960s. Changes in visitor attendance as noted above have varied over the past 20 years, and Waterville Valley Ski Resort has made modest changes within the SUP boundary areas in order to maintain trails and equipment such that the visitor experience is a positive one.
The Forest Service has acknowledged the following listed projects that have occurred or have the potential to occur within the future timeframe within the analysis area and have the potential to add cumulatively to the effects on winter recreation resources:
2007 – Lighting of the J-bar beginner area for night tubing
2011 – Closure of Campton Group CG to Overnight Camping and Motorized Access
2011 – Greeley Ponds Trail and Flume Brook Trail Closure
2011 – Use of Mt Tecumseh for Boy Scout Jamboree, possible reuse of this site every four years for same
2012 – Mad River Path Trail Reconstruction
2012 – 100 foot XC Town WV Ski Bridge Replacement
2012 – Addition of communication building on Mt Tecumseh Communication Site
2013/2014 – Conversion of Campton Group Campground to Campton Day Use Area
2013 – Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Relocation
2013 – Tripoli Road Redesign (possible elimination of 10 campsites within the watershed)
2013/14 – Waterville Valley Super G Course
95 Environmental Assessment
Some of these projects have affected or will affect winter recreation resources in a positive way as identified in their respective permitting documents.
The Proposed Action would allow for an increased visitor experience and potentially an increase skier visitation, but only to those levels achieved during the late 1990’s. Thus, it is not anticipated that large-scale new development would result directly from the implementation of the action alternatives; rather, it is expected that development activities, including businesses, seasonal homes and permanent residences, would return to those levels that were experienced over a decade ago, largely as an indirect result of the project. Effects to winter recreation resources from this development are expected to be positive and consistent with historic levels of winter recreation.
In the foreseeable future, it is expected that demand for winter recreation opportunities will continue to grow and existing and future recreational facilities will meet that demand. Implementation of Alternative B is not expected to increase alpine skiing beyond those levels currently permitted, but the expansion would return skier use to levels experienced at Waterville Valley during the late 1980’s. Increased visitation at the ski area would likely increase demand for other winter recreation activities elsewhere in the valley including snowshoeing, winter hiking, cross country skiing, sled dog excursions and ice skating.
The Proposed Action would add measurably to the positive cumulative recreation effects when combined with recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Project Area.
Alpine Skiing in a Globally Warming Environment
The climate model results and the predicted expected temperature increases discussed in Section 3.1 Water Resources suggest that the numbers of skiable days may decline perhaps 10 to 20% annually and that the economically critical Christmas/New Year’s holiday period may be increasingly affected. Smaller, less highly capitalized ski areas (and snowmobile and nordic centers) unable to invest significantly in adaptive capacity technologies such as snowmaking infrastructure may be particularly pressured, especially those at lower elevations or in the southern portion of the state. Under a higher greenhouse gas emissions scenario, one study suggests that only four out of fourteen major northeast ski resorts would remain profitable by 2100 (Burakowski and Magnusson 2012). Another study found that only 35 of the Northeast’s 103 current ski areas would be financially viable by 2099 (Dawson and Scott 2013), again under a higher
96 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
emissions scenario. This study identified Waterville Valley as one of the ski areas expected to remain financially viable.
With expected effects of climate change, some level of warmer winter temperature and decreased natural snowfall will affect ski resorts for the foreseeable future. Resorts will need to adapt to remain competitive and viable. Expanded snowmaking systems are expected to provide acceptable mitigation for many of the larger and more northerly ski areas, including Waterville Valley (Dawson and Scott 2013). The Proposed Action would add cumulatively to Waterville Valley’s long-term need to upgrade its snowmaking infrastructure to mitigate for global warming. The timing and intensity of changes in temperature and snowfall from global climate change vary among the models. With the potential for improvements in snowmaking technologies to help the industry adapt to these changes, the need for increased snowmaking coverage is not presently quantifiable for analysis.
3.9 Socioeconomic
Implementation of the Proposed Action is important to the economic stability of the communities around the Waterville Valley Ski Resort. The project would increase terrain, improve safety and offer a more gradual continuum of terrain challenges at the resort in order to provide an improved visitor experience. These actions are expected to lead to an increase in visitors to Waterville Valley Ski Resort and a potential increase in tourism and development within the surrounding region. Visitation is not expected to exceed levels achieved in the mid-1990s.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
The direct and indirect socioeconomic effects analysis area focuses on the greater Waterville Valley area and, to a lesser extent, the rest of Grafton County. This area was chosen because the direct effects would predominately occur within the immediate area. The direct and indirect effects are described for a period of 40 years from project implementation, which is consistent with the term of Waterville Valley’s SUP.
Existing Conditions
Existing Development and Population
Waterville Valley is located fully within the White Mountain National Forest. It is considered a year-round resort community with many recreational activities and
97 Environmental Assessment
attractions. With approximately 250 year-round residents, the town experiences an influx of 4,000 to 6,000 visitors on peak weekends.
The population of Waterville Valley increased rapidly during the 1990s due to a combination of new residents to New Hampshire and residents that remained in the area in response to the job growth at that time. New Hampshire had the fastest growing population among the Northeast states for the past four decades, reflecting the changing employment and economic picture of the state (NHOEP 2009). Population growth has slowed considerably since 2000. This was a national trend, with the national population growth decreasing, but the decrease was even larger in the Northeast states, again, reflecting national and regional changes in economic and employment opportunity (NHOEP 2009). Historic and current population data for Waterville Valley are presented in Table 3.9-1. Table 3.9-1. State, County and Town Population Estimates
%Change 1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 to 2010 New 920,610 1,109,252 1,235,786 1,316,470 43.0% Hampshire Grafton 67,487 76,838 83,778 91,424 35.5% County Waterville 180 151 257 247 37.2% Valley Source: NHELMI and NHOEP
The Waterville Valley Master Plan defines the best and most appropriate plan for future development of the town. The objective of the plan is to guide town officials towards the goals of achieving the principles of smart growth, sound planning and wise resource protection while maintaining and enhancing the unique lifestyle and culture of the town. As stated in the Master Plan, “Waterville Valley seeks to be a self-contained residential four-season resort community with extensive recreational, educational and leisure-oriented amenities and activities; a community that protects and enhances the great natural beauty of the valley while providing a high level of services and facilities for residents, property owners and visitors.” (WVPB 2005)
Waterville Valley Ski Resort is an important part of the Town’s plan to provide four- season resort services and the success of the Waterville Valley contributes directly to the success of the Town. In the last 14 years, the resort has experienced a reduction in skier visitation of approximately 75,000 guests (see Figure 3.8-1). At approximately $70 total revenue per skier visit for resorts in the Northeast (Snowsport Economic Analysis 2011),
98 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
this reduction in visitation represents lost revenue to Waterville Valley and the Town of more than $5,000,000. The Proposed Action is intended in part to recapture some of that lost revenue.
Historic Population Change of the Town of Waterville Valley
Waterville Valley has played a key role in stimulating population growth in the Town. In 1960, the town’s permanent population was 14 residents (WVPB 2005). Waterville Valley opened as a ski resort in 1966 and by 1970, the Town population had grown to 109 residents. From 1970 until 2010, population grew to 247 residents. Much of this growth was directly or indirectly attributable to Waterville Valley.
Housing
Characteristics of the housing supply in Waterville Valley are presented in Table 3.9-2, along with housing numbers for New Hampshire and Grafton County for comparison. Table 3.9-2. Housing Supply Characteristics 2000-2009
Total Units % change Single Multi-Family Manufactured
2009 (change from 2000 Family 2009 2009 (change Housing 2009 from 2000) (change from from 2000) (change from New Hampshire 611,339 12% 386,9372000) 185,197 39,2052000) (64,815) (46,059) (15,069) (3,687) Grafton County 49,572 45% 30,574 14,809 4,191 (5,844) (3,682) (1,635) (527) Waterville Valley 1,198 9% 147 1,051 0 (101) (44) (57) Source: NHOEP
Clearly, housing growth during the period 2000 to 2009 was less in the Town of Waterville Valley (9% increase) than for the whole State of New Hampshire (12% increase) and much less than surrounding Grafton County (45%). Although there is no way to know definitively why growth at Waterville Valley was low, it is probable that declining skier visitation played a role. Data delineating the difference between year- round and vacation homes is not readily available for the Town of Waterville Valley, although it can be assumed from a comparison of the number of housing units to the Town’s population data that a large percentage of housing units within the Town are not used for year-round habitation. In fact, the majority of housing units that are categorized as Multi-Family (1,051) are really condominiums (WVPB 2005). When compared to data from the state and Grafton County, the number of “multi-family” versus single family units in the Town of Waterville Valley indicates the importance of the resort to the local tax base.
99 Environmental Assessment
Employment and Spending
Employment and wage data are presented in Table 3.9-3, and employment by industry sector for Grafton County is presented in Table 3.9-4. Grafton County has exhibited substantial economic growth in the last decade, more so than any of the other New Hampshire counties (NHELMI 2012). Between 2000 and 2010, the employment rate grew by 4.3% primarily as a result of growth in the health care sector. The economic growth of both the state of New Hampshire and the Town of Waterville Valley differs from that of Grafton County. Employment declined slightly in New Hampshire between 2000 and 2010 (-0.8%). The Town demonstrated an 11.7% decrease in employment rate during the same period. This decline is likely attributed at least in part to the recession and national economic instability. However, the decline in employment in Town of Waterville Valley is also likely related to declines in staffing at the resort and the associated services or industries that are connected to declines in Waterville Valley skier visitation over the ten-year period. Table 3.9-3. Employment and Wage Data
Employment Employment % Change Average Average % Change
2010 2000 from 2000 Annual Annual from 2000 Wage 2010 Wage 2000 New Hampshire 600,540 605,931 -0.8% 45,961.76($) 34,725.08($) 32.4% Grafton County 51,256 49,155 4.3% 47,100.04 30,479.28 54.5% Waterville Valley 511 579 -11.7% 26,069.68 18,203.12 43.2% Source: NHELMI 2012 Table 3.9-4. Employment by Industry Sector for Grafton County, 2000-2010
% Change 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 from 2000 Total 51,256 51,401 52,901 52,729 52,267 51,541 51,355 50,615 49,690 49,352 49,155 4.3 Employment Retail Trade 7,515 7,780 7,910 7,832 7,758 7,589 7,411 7,258 7,293 7,184 7,244 3.7 Real Estate 455 447 n n n n 503 539 649 642 n -2.9 Arts, Entertainment 1,133 1,121 1,137 1,052 1,096 1,137 1,415 1,419 1,322 1,294 1,038 9.2 and Recreation Healthcare and 10,964 10,657 10,330 10,049 9,694 9,483 9,229 8,972 8,626 8,172 7,830 40.0 Social Assistance Accommodation/ 4,862 4,789 4,927 4,989 4,903 4,930 5,047 4,822 4,729 4,625 4,534 7.2 Food Service n=Data does not meet disclosure standards Source: NHELMI
100 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Wages, conversely, have increased substantially at the Town, county and the state levels. While jobs have decreased by nearly 12% in Waterville Valley, wages have increased by approximately 43% since 2000. Similarly, wages in Grafton County have increased by almost 55% and in the state of New Hampshire by 32%.
The quarterly unemployment data shown in Table 3.9-5 indicate that the lowest rate of unemployment for the Town of Waterville Valley is experienced during the winter operating season of the resort. The highest rate of unemployment in these towns is during the spring and fall, following the end of the ski season and prior to the start of the summer travel and tourism season, and also before the ski season gets underway. Grafton County as a whole is much less affected by the seasonal nature of employment in this region. The County experiences slightly lower unemployment rates during the summer travel and tourism season as compared to the winter months, with its highest rate of unemployment coming in the winter. It is apparent that the winter operations of the resort have a major influence on the unemployment rates of the Town of Waterville Valley. Table 3.9-5. Quarterly Unemployment Data, 2011
Annual January April July October
New Hampshire 5.4% 5.5% 5.4% 5.5% 5.3% Grafton County 4.5% 4.8% 4.7% 4.4% 3.9% Town of Waterville 6.7% 3.9% 8.2% 6.2% 8.3% Valley Source: NHELMI Table 3.9-6 shows estimates of Town of Waterville Valley’s direct and indirect effects on employment in the region. During the 2011-2012 ski season, Waterville Valley employed 58 people year-round. Another 204 people worked seasonal full-time positions and 426 people work seasonal part-time positions for a total of 688 seasonal and year-round staff. Based upon data published by the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC 1993), it is estimated that the average full-time job in the hotel and amusement industry (which includes ski area employment) generates an additional 2 jobs within the study area. Translating the seasonal full-time and seasonal part-time jobs into a full-time equivalent, it is estimated that the resort’s total direct and indirect effect on employment in the area equates to 1981 jobs including full-time, seasonal, and part-time work, or approximately 769 full-time equivalent jobs.
101 Environmental Assessment
Table 3.9-6. Regional Employment Derived From Waterville Valley Ski Resort, 2011-12
Employment at Waterville Actual Employment Full-time Equivalent Valley Year-Round Full-time 58 58 Seasonal Full-time* 204 102 Seasonal Part-time* 426 107 Total 688 267 Indirect Employment (job x 1.88) 1293 502 Total Waterville Valley and 1981 769 Indirect *Data provided by Waterville Valley Ski Resort
Ski Area Economics
Deficiencies in natural snow fall along with fluctuations in the economy and other factors have resulted in variable skier visitation regionally and at Waterville Valley in the past decade. Table 3.9-7 illustrates the relationships between skier visits, annual snowfall and days operating for skiing during the past twelve seasons, as provided by the Waterville Valley.
Although the relationship between natural snowfall, days open and skier visitation is neither clear nor predictable, the table does show that Waterville Valley visitation has varied considerably since the 1997-98 ski season. Increased snowfall has in some years resulted in a longer season; however that has not always equated with increased skier visits, notably the 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 seasons which show an increase in snowfall and number of days open from the previous season, but skier visits declined. It has also been noted anecdotally that natural snowfall in the Boston and greater Massachusetts/southern New England area often produces maximum skier visitation at New Hampshire ski resorts, so location of natural snow is also a factor.
It is important to note that a complex number of national and regional social, economic and climatic factors can factor into these relationships, including fluctuations in average salaries, gasoline prices, weekend weather, timing of snow/thaw events, etc. It is anticipated that improving operations by adding a chairlift and expanding the specific proposed new terrain would encourage increased skier visitation. Because the proposed expansion would increase terrain for novice and intermediate skiers (as well as other ability skiers), improving opportunities and safety for all levels, the resort would provide an improved visitor experience, thereby attracting new or returning skiers and increasing Waterville Valley’s market share of skiers. Although it cannot be established definitively that the Proposed Action would result in increased visitation, the resort
102 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Table 3.9-7. Waterville Valley Skier Visits, Snowfall and Days Open 1997-1998 to 2011-2012
Year Skier Visits Snowfall (inches) Days Open 1997-98 268,000 127 144 1998-99 201,771 113 143 1999-00 204,322 92 138 2000-01 246,000 207 146 2001-02 205,072 99 138 2002-03 223,065 133 137 2003-04 175,161 118 133 2004-05 200,840 176 130 2005-06 183,321 78 141 2006-07 179,471 159 127 2007-08 202,026 194 150 2008-09 190,082 167 142 2009-10 169,830 123 126 2010-11 185,626 123 136 2011-12 131,726 91 123 2012-2013 160,750 130 147 Data provided by Waterville Valley Ski Resort expectations are consistent with the New England Winter Recreation skier market analysis prepared for Forest Service (BBC Research and Consulting 1999).
This project is identified in the Waterville Valley Ski Resort Master Development Plan (MDP) which was accepted by the Forest Service in 1999 as replacement for the previous MDP from 1976. The principal goal of the 1999 MDP “is to provide a plan that will direct improvements to enhance the guest experience at Waterville Valley.” Planning for this document included extensive market research and guest surveys that were used to evaluate guest preferences and needs, thus ensuring that the proposed improvements are consumer-driven. This market research, as summarized in the MDP and supported by BBC Research and Consulting 1999 supports the expectation that the Proposed Action would result in increased visitation to the resort.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Direct, indirect and induced socioeconomic effects to the Project Area and Grafton County are expected to occur under both alternatives.
Direct effects include direct payment for goods and services in connection with the project. Indirect effects result from expenditures by project suppliers for machinery, services and materials such as piping, pumps, accounting services, etc. Induced effects generally would occur in the wholesale and retail trade and personal services sectors of
103 Environmental Assessment
the economy by households affected by the project. The socioeconomic effects from indirect and induced spending are often referred to as “ripple” or “multiplier” effects, as increased employment income is spread through the economy.
Table 3.9-8 provides a summary of estimated qualitative socioeconomic effects to the communities around Waterville Valley. Effects are shown for both the short-term (one to three years) and long-term (five to ten years). Long-term values shown under Alternatives B represent potential socioeconomic effects in comparison to existing or short-term conditions. Actual effects may vary from projections due to a variety of factors including weather conditions, changes within the marketplace and the timing of the implementation of the project. Table 3.9-8. Summary of Estimated Socioeconomic Effects to Grafton County and Local Communities
Alternative A Alternative B Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Estimated Skier No change, Variable to Variable, but Variable, but Visits variable but lower declining due to increasing stable trend compared to continued loss of historic market share Population Slight increase Variable Slight increase Variable Grafton County Housing Grafton Slight increase Variable Slight increase Variable County Ski Related No Change No Change Slight increase in Stable at slightly Employment employment higher levels Ski Area No Change Reductions in Minor increase to Stable at slightly Operation Direct employment and local economy due increased levels Effects income to increase in skier due to increased visitation operational expenditures Ski Area No Change Reductions in Minor increase to Stable at slightly Operation Indirect employment and local economy increased levels in Effects income local/regional economies Note: Estimated effects are the result of no action or implementation of the Proposed Action.
Alternative A – Proposed Action
Alternative A represents no significant change in the socioeconomic character of the Town of Waterville Valley or of Grafton County. During the short-term (one to ten years) population would be expected to increase as a consequence of general regional
104 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
growth, which would increase the number of housing units, but this growth is not expected to be related to Waterville Valley operations.
In the long term (ten to forty years), population and housing in Grafton County would vary. Skier visits and revenue totals likely would continue to fluctuate unpredictably, based in part upon the amount, timing and location of natural snowfall from year to year and varying economic factors. Unsatisfactory guest experiences would be expected to continue to cost the Waterville Valley market share as skiers seek more diverse terrain conditions elsewhere.
Potential long-term negative socioeconomic effects under Alternative A include minor reductions in indirect income and seasonal and year-round employment and reductions in federal, state and local tax revenues. Vacation home vacancy rates would be expected to increase during low snow years, and real estate property values may be adversely affected, potentially causing some decreases in the local property tax bases.
Alternative B – Proposed Action
Alternative B would result in short and long-term direct and indirect positive effects to the socioeconomic character of the effect analysis area. Short-term expenditures by project suppliers and subcontractors would boost the local economy. Short-term direct effects on employment from construction would be minimal, as the construction work associated with the chairlift would be expected to be completed by a contractor, and expansion of the Green Peak trail network would be completed by Waterville Valley personnel. The short-term effects of Alternative B on population and housing would be expected to be minimal, as little new permanent full-time employment would be expected to be created with the trail expansion and new lift.
Long-term positive employment effects are most likely to be experienced by those who rely upon Waterville Valley for winter employment, as improved resort visitation would likely lead to greater job stability. Several new part-time seasonal jobs would be created. Improved visitation would also contribute to greater indirect employment stability in the service sectors of the surrounding communities. The long-term viability of the ski area would be improved and lost revenue resulting from decreased operations due to continued loss of visitation would largely be restored, as the resort would more reliably meet user expectation.
105 Environmental Assessment
Cumulative Effects
The socioeconomic resources cumulative effects analysis area includes the Town of Waterville Valley and Grafton County, as these are the areas within which virtually all of the socioeconomic effect of the Proposed Action would occur. Issues relate to economic vitality of the communities while still preserving the New England village way of life. The time frame covers 10 years before and 40 years after implementation of the project actions, consistent with the term of Waterville Valley’s SUP.
Actions in the recent past and present have resulted in population and employment decline in the Town of Waterville Valley, in considerable contrast to Grafton County where growth in both population and employment has occurred. Continued loss of skier visitation at Waterville Valley has likely contributed cumulatively to these declines. While housing and wages have increased in the Town during this same time period, both are significantly less than the housing and wages increases experienced in Grafton Country, which may again be a reflection of reduced economic activity associated with declining skier visitation. In the foreseeable future, it is expected that Alternative A would add cumulatively and negatively to downward trends in population and employment experienced in the last ten years in the Town of Waterville Valley, at least in the short-term (one to five years). In the longer term (six to forty years), economic recovery combined with continued modest growth in housing and wages would likely stabilize and then provide modest growth in population and employment, but this growth would be less robust than under Alternative B. These trends would like have no significant effect on the socioeconomic resources of Grafton County.
Under Alternative B, the Proposed Action would add cumulatively and positively in both the short and long-term to socioeconomic conditions in the Town of Waterville Valley. At present, a new condominium development, coincidentally named Green Peak, has been constructed and is currently selling units. Although the Town of Waterville Valley has now reached more than 87% of the land development envisioned in its Master Plan (Waterville Valley Master Plan 2005), continued development of the Green Peak type is anticipated, and may accelerate as the global economy improves. Alternative B would have minor positive but arguably negligible socioeconomic effects to Grafton County.
106 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
4 Consultation or Coordination
The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, and members of the public during the development of this environmental assessment:
4.1 USDA Forest Service Participation
The following WMNF employees participated in initial scoping, were members of the Interdisciplinary Team, provided materials for incorporation into the EA, and/or provided technical review of the EA.
4.2 Other Governmental Agencies Contacted
The following were contacted during the environmental analysis process and provided materials or information that was incorporated into the EA.
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game
New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources
US Fish and Wildlife Service Name Title Tom Wagner Forest Supervisor Susan Mathison Eastern Region Winter Sports Team Leader Sarah LaPlante Assistant Recreation Program Leader Stacy Lemieux Forest Planner Clara Weloth Fisheries and Wildlife Biologist Ken Allen Landscape Architect Chris Mattrick Forest Botanist Sheela Johnson Forest Hydrologist Robert Colter Soil Scientist Tom Paquette Winter Sports Permit Administrator Sarah Jordan Forest Archaeologist
107 Environmental Assessment
5 References
BBC .1999. New England Winter Recreation Industry and Market Analysis. BBC Research and Consulting, Inc. Prepared for USDA Forest Service White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests. Denver, Colorado. Bennett, K.P., editor. 2010. Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire (second edition). Univ. of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH. Burakowski, E. and M. Magnusson. 2012. Climate Impact on the Winter Tourism Economy in the United States. Prepared for the Natural Resource Defense Council and Protect Our Winters. 33 pp. Carlson and Fay. 1998. The Snowmelt Report. White Mountain National Forest. Laconia, New Hampshire. Chenger, J. 2002. Summer survey of New Hampshire woodland bats – June 27 – July 19, 2002. Bat Conservation and Management, Carlisle, PA 49pp. Chenger, J. 2004. 2004 woodland bat survey in the White Mountain National Forest – August 8 – 18, 2004. Bat Conservation and Management, Inc. Carlisle, PA 38pp. Cotton and Olimpio. 1996. Geology, Yield and Water Quality of the Stratified-Drift Aquifers in the Pemigewasset River Basin, Central New Hampshire. USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 94-4083. Pembroke, NH. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm (Version 04DEC98). Dawson, J. and D. Scott. 2013. Managing for climate change in the alpine ski sector. Tourism Management 35:244-254. DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH. p 261, 414, 447-465, 482. Gill, J. 2010. Climate Change and Winter Recreation-a summary of available literature. White Mountain National Forest, Campton, New Hampshire. Gray, D. M. and O’Neil, A. R. J. 1973. Application of the Energy Budget for Predicting Snowmelt Runoff. IN: Advanced Concepts and Techniques in the Study of Snow
108 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
and Ice Resources – An Interdisciplinary Symposium, Monterey, CA. Dec. 2-6, 1973. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. pp. 108-118. Hamlin, P.L. 2011. VT ANR Management Guidelines for Optimizing Mast Yields in Beech Mast Production Areas. VT Agency of Natural Resources Report. 24pp. Homer, J.W. 1999. Soil Survey of Grafton County Area, New Hampshire. Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with NH Agricultural Experiment Station. Hornbeck, J.W., M.M. Alexander, C. Eager, J.Y. Carlson, R.B. Smith. 2001. Database for Chemical Contents of Streams on the White Mountain National Forest. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station General Technical Report NE-282. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/3757. Huntington, T.G., G.A. Hodgkins, B.D. Keim and R.W. Dudley. 2004. Changes in the proportion of precipitation occurring as snow in Northeast (1949 to 2000). Journal of Climate 17:2626-2636. Kiser, J.D., R.R.Kiser, V.Brack, Jr., and E.R.Britzke. 2001. A survey for eastern forest bats on Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests with emphasis on the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Environmental Solutions and Innovations, LLC. Cincinnati, Ohio. 60 pp. _____, J.Beverly, and V.Brack, Jr. 2002. A survey of eastern forest bat community in the Lake Champlain valley, with emphasis on the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Environmental Solutions and Innovations, LLC. Cincinnati, Ohio. 47 pp. Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):625-631. Lee, Daniel S.C. 2010. Assessment of Grafton Economy in the aftermath of the Great Recession. College of Business Administration, Plymouth State College. http://www.graftoncountyedc.org/images/uploads/file/PDF%20Documents/In%2 0the%20News/reaccessment%20of%20Grafton%20economy%20after%20great%2 0recess.pdf Marancik, J. 1977. Special Report. Fishery management program and status of ponds and major streams in the White Mountain National Forest, Waterville Unit. MDP 1999 Waterville Valley Resort Master Development Plan. Sno Engineering. October 1999. (available for review at the Rochester Ranger District office of the Green Mountain National Forest in Rochester, VT or by contacting Susan Mathison at 603-536-6245 or [email protected].) NAI .2011. Normandeau Associates, Inc. Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Botanical Survey. Bedford, NH, September 2011.
109 Environmental Assessment
NAI .2012a Normandeau Associates, Inc. Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Biological Evaluation. Bedford, New Hampshire, April 2012. NAI .2012b Normandeau Associates, Inc. Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Wildlife Report. Bedford, New Hampshire. 2012. NAI .2012c Normandeau Associates, Inc. Wetlands of the Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion. Bedford, New Hampshire. 2012. NHDES .2010. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Watershed Report Cards. Based on data from the Listing of Threatened or Impaired Waters that Require a TMDL. http://www2.des.nh.gov/SWQA/AttachmentViewer.aspx NHELMI .2012. New Hampshire Employment Security, Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau. Accessed April 2012.http://www.nhes.nh.gov/elmi/statistics/
NHF&G .2010a. NHF&G News: Winter surveys of NH caves shows WNS affecting NH bats. NHFG Department, Concord, NH.3 pp. (http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2010/News_2010_Q2/NG_Bat s_041210.html.) _____ 2010b. Eastern Region, White-nose Syndrome Regional Response Plan 2010-2011 (available at: www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/wildlife/bats/php). NHF&G .2011. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Atlantic Salmon Brood Stock Fishery. http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/atlantic_salmon.htm NHOEP .2009. New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning. Current Estimates and Trends in New Hampshire’s Housing Supply, Updated 2009. http://www.nh.gov/oep/programs/DataCenter/Housing/documents/2009housing report.pdf NRCS .2010. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Eleventh Edition. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rustad, L., J. Campbell, J.S. Dukes, T. Huntington, K. Fallon Lambert, J. Mohan and N. Rodenhouse. 2012. Changing climate, changing forests: the impacts of climate change on forests of the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NRS-99. Sasse, D. B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH. 54pp. and Appendices. Schmidt, R.A., C.A. Troendle and J.R. Meiman. 1998. Sublimation of Snowpacks in Subalpine Conifer Forests. Can. J. For. Res. 28(4): 501-513.
110 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Sperduto, Dan and Ben Kimball. 2011. Natural Communities of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. 266 pp. http://www.nhdfl.org/library/pdf/Natural%20Heritage/WebVersion_Tech%20Ma nual.pdf Squires, J.R., K.S. McKelvey and L.F. Ruggiero. 2004. A snow tracking protocol used to delineate local lynx, Lynx Canadensis, distributions. Canadian Field Naturalist 118 (4): 583-589. UNH. 2006. University of New Hampshire Media Relations (UNH), New Hampshire Skiers Facing Downhill Slide of Diminishing Ski Areas. http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/nov/lw09ski.cfm?type=n
USC. 2006. Union of Concerned Scientists Climate Change in the US Northeast. A report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment. www.northeastclimateimpacts.org USACE. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Mississippi. 98 pp. plus appendices. USACE. 2011. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-09-19. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USDA-Forest Service. 1997a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, for the Development of Snowmaking Water Impoundments at Waterville Valley Ski Resort. USDA Forest Service, Green Mountain National Forest, Rochester, Vermont. (available for review at the Rochester Ranger District office of the Green Mountain National Forest in Rochester, VT or by contacting Susan Mathison at 603-536-6245 or [email protected].) USDA-Forest Service. 2000a. Canada lynx conservation agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service. U.S. Forest Service Agreement Number 00-MU-11015600-013. Denver, Colorado. USDA-Forest Service. 2000b. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Missoula, MT. 122 pp. USDA-Forest Service. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Loon Mountain Ski Resort Development and Expansion. USDA White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, New Hampshire.
USDA-Forest Service. 2005a White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). United States Department of Agriculture -
111 Environmental Assessment
Forest Service; Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. September 2005. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/whitemountain/landmanagement/planning/?ci d=STELPRDB5199941&width=full. USDA-Forest Service. 2005b Final Environmental Impact Statement, White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service; Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. September 2005. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/whitemountain/landmanagement/planning/?ci d=STELPRDB5199941&width=full USDA-Forest Service. 2005c Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement, White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service; Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. September 2005. USDA-Forest Service. 2007. Canada lynx analysis unit (LAU) mapping and habitat designation for the White Mountain National Forest, New Hampshire and Maine. Unpublished Report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH USDA-Forest Service. 2010a. WMNF Review of new information for White-nose Syndrome and forest bat populations. Project File. Campton, NH. 11 pp. USDA-Forest Service. 2010b. White Mountain National Forest Climate Change Report. USDA White Mountain National Forest, Lincoln, New Hampshire. USDA-Forest Service. 2010c. Forest-wide Anabat acoustic stationary, driving, and exit count surveys. Unpub. data. District Office, Campton, NH. USDA-Forest Service. 2011. USDA -FS Regional Forester Sensitive Plant Species and Animal Species Lists. USEPA 2010. Assessment Summary for Reporting Year 2010, New Hampshire, Pemigewasset Watershed. US EPA website: http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_watershed.control. Accessed April 10, 2012. USEPA 2011. 2010 Annual Air Quality Report on New England. USEPA Region 1 New England regional Laboratory, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts. http://www.epa.gov/region1/oeme/AnnualReport2010.pdf USFWS 1981. Interim Regional Policy for New England Stream Flow Recommendations. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. USFWS 2010. US Fish and Wildlife Service National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats (National WNS
112 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Response Plan) (available at: http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/planning.html). Veilleux, J. P. 2005. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat, Myotis leibii, at the Surry Mountain Lake Dam, Surry, Cheshire County, NH. Report submitted to Army Corps of Engineers from Department of Biology, Franklin Pierce College, NH. 28 pp. _____. 2006. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat, Myotis leibii, at the Surry Mountain Lake Dam, Surry, Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Report submitted to Army Corps of Engineers from Department of Biology, Franklin Pierce College, NH. 17 pp. _____. 2007. Summary report on research activity focused on the roosting ecology of the eastern small-footed bat, Myotis leibii, at the Surry Mountain Lake Dam, Surry, Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Report submitted to Army Corps of Engineers from Department of Biology, Franklin Pierce College, NH. 23 pp. _____ and S. Reynolds. 2010. 2009/2010 survey of bat populations and status of WNS in select NH hibernacula. Report submitted to NHFGD, Concord, NH. 44 pp. Wake, C.P. and A. Markham. 2005. Indicators of climate change in the Northeast 2005. Clean Air-Cool Planet: Portsmouth, New Hampshire. www.cleanair- coolplanet.org Weloth, C. J. 2010. Wildlife Report (multi-year/seasonal site-specific woodland bat, MIS bird, winter tracking, and habitat surveys) for the Crawford Stewardship Project Area in the towns of Bethlehem, Carroll, Crawfords Purchase, NH. Unpublished report in Crawford project record. Pemigewasset Ranger District, Campton, NH. WVPB 2005. Waterville Valley Planning Board, Waterville Valley Master Plan. Revised 2005. http://www.watervillevalley.org/Town_Office_files/Town%20of%20Waterville% 20Valley,%20NH%20Master%20Plan.pdf WVSR .2012. Waterville Valley Ski Resort webpage: www.waterville.com. Accessed March 27, 2012.
Yamasaki, M. 2004. Bats and Small Mammals in Old Growth Habitats in the White Mountains.Forest Bat. In: Bennett, Karen P., technical coordinator. 2005. Moving Toward Sustainable Forestry: Lessons from Old Growth Forests. University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Natural Resource Network Report.
113 Environmental Assessment
6 Abbreviations and Acronyms
AMC Appalachian Mountain Club AQI Air Quality Index BBTS Black and Blue Trail Smashers (Waterville Valley Ski Resort) BE Biological Evaluation BMPs Best Management Practices BSB Bear-scarred Beech CCC Comfortable Carrying Capacity CEQ Council for Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFCAM Cubic Feet of Compressed Air per Minute CFS Cubic Feet per Second CM Carbon Monoxide CSM Cubic Feet per Second per Square Mile dB Decibels DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DC Desired Condition DWA Deer Wintering Area EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ELT Ecological Land Types EPSC Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FMF February Median Flow Forest Plan White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Forest Service United States Forest Service FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual GPEA Green Peak Expansion Area GPD Gallons per Day GPM Gallons per Minute HUC Hydrologic Unit Code for USGS ID Team Interdisciplinary Team LLC Limited Liability Company
114 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LOO Likelihood of Occurrence MA Management Area MDP Master Development Plan Mgal Million Gallons MIS Management Indicator Species NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAI Normandeau Associates, Inc. NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NF National Forest NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services NHDES-ARD New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Air Resources Division NHDHR New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources NHF&G New Hampshire Fish and Game Department NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NNIS Non-native Invasive Species NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NWI National Wetland Inventory Ppm Parts Per Million R9 Eastern Region Forest Service RFSS Regional Forester Sensitive Species ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum RPA Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act RSA Revised Statutes Annotated (New Hampshire) S&Gs Standards and Guidelines SIO Scenic Integrity Objective SMS Scenery Management Systems SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions SUP Special Use Permit TDD Telecommunication Device for the Deaf TES Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
115 Environmental Assessment
TTY Text Telephone US United States USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geologic Survey VQOs Visual Quality Objectives Waterville Valley Waterville Valley Ski Resort WMNF White Mountain National Forest WNS White-nose Syndrome
116 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project
Appendix A – Response to Comments
The Forest Service received five (5) responses during the comment period for the Preliminary Environmental Assessment 30-Day Comment Document. Two (2) of these responses requested supplemental information and one (1) of these followed up with a supportive comment. The remaining three (3) contained four comments, two (2) supportive and two (2) requiring a response. Each response received was retained in the Project file. Comments identified below within brackets [ ] are quoted directly from the letters received (spelling and grammatical errors are left in place); otherwise, the comments are summarized.
Requests for Supplemental Information
Two responses requested additional information. One asked for a trail map that showed ability levels for the proposed trails and another asked for copies of several of the specialist reports, upon which the Preliminary EA was based.
The requested information was provided to each responder.
Supportive Comments
Of the five (5) comments received, three (3) were in support of the project. One commenter felt the project would enhance the economic viability of the ski resort:
[Waterville Valley is a very unique. It is the only traditional “true New England ski village” and the expansion project will only help the area thrive and remain competitive.]
The second supportive commenter professed to be an avid conservationist and an avid skier and stated:
[I support the Green Peak expansion. I believe a good job was done on the report and will not be a detriment to the environment.]
A third comment stated that the commenter was”
[very impressed with the level of detail both in the surveys conducted as well as what is provided in their documents]
These comments have been noted and the Forest Service appreciates the public input.
Comments Requiring Response
One commenter stated that he could not support the Green Peak Expansion project. He felt the EA was fundamentally flawed because it did not provide an alternative:
[which would analyze the economic impact of investing the sum allocated in the preferred alternative to equiping Waterville Valley’s present terrain with high efficiency snowmaking
117 Environmental Assessment
equipment. I beleive this could well show a greater return on investment than the preferred alternative, which I do not beleive will attract and sustain significant numbers of additional customers.]
Response: The Purpose and Need for the Green Peak Expansion project is to improve the guest experience for beginner and intermediate skiers by providing a “summit” experience that is not presently available at Waterville Valley due to upper elevation terrain limitations. Additionally, the Green Peak Expansion project will provide additional beginner and intermediate terrain which will reduce congestion and ability-level mixing on existing terrain (particularly on Valley Run which is the primary egress trail for the south side of the resort), both of which presently compromise safety and skier experience. Enhanced snowmaking on existing terrain would not address the stated Purpose and Need of the project.
The same commenter also objected to the project because of perceived impacts to Canada lynx. He stated:
[I also object to the proposed granting of a Forest Plan Amendment without any the protection of compensatory lynx habitat. The proposed Forest Plan Amendment without habitat compensation is a significant degradation of the White Mountain National Forest’s potential as a lynx recovery area.]
Response: The Forest Service wildlife biologist for this project concluded that a project-specific Forest Plan amendment to allow the Green Peak Expansion project would not result in a significant impact to Canada lynx. That assessment is documented in the Biological Evaluation completed for this project and contained in the Project file. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal agency charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act, concurred with this assessment. As noted in the EA, The Green Peak Expansion area is unlikely to provide core home range habitat for Canada lynx, either now or in the future, due to existing, adjacent year-round human activity. The very small amount of mapped Suitable Foraging Habitat (0.03% of LAU 11) that would be converted to or fragmented by the new ski terrain would not prevent lynx movement in and around the Green Peak Expansion area. Because this Forest Plan amendment would be project-specific and minor, its project area impact would be negligible and the amendment would not alter the potential for Canada lynx to occur anywhere else on the WMNF.
118